The Delhi High Court recently acquitted a man who was convicted for preparation of committing Dacoity as he was never provided with legal aid during the trial period and was in jail for 15 years.
Brief Facts:
Four people, including the Petitioner, were charged under Sections 399 of the Indian Penal Code (preparing to commit dacoity) and 402 (the penalty for belonging to a gang of dacoits) and Section 25 of the Arms Act in the FIR which was filed in 2007. According to the Prosecution, Sunil's belongings included a rope, a bag, a knife, and a piece of dark-coloured clothing that was recovered.
The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Sessions Court vide which the Appellant was convicted under the above-mentioned offences.
Contentions of the Appellant:
It was argued that one essential ingredient of dacoity is the involvement of 5 persons or more and in the present case, only 4 were arrested. It was contended that during the trial proceedings, the Accused persons were not provided with legal assistance.
Contentions of the State:
It was argued that the 5th Accused ran away when the raid was conducted at the spot. However, his name has been mentioned in the disclosure statement.
Observations of the Court:
The Court observed that the testimony of all the witnesses, including the Investigating Officer, is completely silent on the recovery of the raxine bag, masks, etc., from the possession of the Appellant. It was also noted that the Accused did in fact remain unrepresented and unaided during the effective stages of the Trial. The most vital part of a criminal trial is the stage of cross-examination and the same could not be conducted in this case as the Learned Amicus Curie was appointed much later after the recording of the entire evidence.
As the "guardians of a person's liberty, Courts are duty-bound by the Constitution as well as their oath to ensure fair trial to an accused which is the constitutional goal," the High Court expounded and further noted that the Trial Court should have realised its duty to provide effective legal aid to an Accused "who is poor and marginalised and could not defend himself."
It was also remarked that the absence of legal representation for the Accused continued throughout the whole trial. Noting that the right to free trial is a fundamental right, the Bench observed that there has been a miscarriage of justice due to the absence of cross-examination.
The decision of the Court:
The Appellant was acquitted by the High Court, and it was noted that the Accused underwent trial for 15 years. The agony itself is the fact that the trial was prolonged beyond 15 years. Accordingly, the Appeal was allowed, and the Delhi High Court directed a fresh trial.
Case Title: Sunil V. State
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Swarna Kant Sharma
Case No: CRL.A. 273/2009
Advocates for the Appellant: Adv. Ms. Gayatri Nandwani (DHCLSC), Adv. Ms. Mudita Sharda.
Advocates for the Respondent: Adv. Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar.
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
