9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Adequacy of Legal Representation 2. Compliance with Procedural Rules 3. Interpretation of Rule 37 of the General Rules (Criminal), 1957 4. Validity of Conviction and Sentence in Light of Procedural Breach 5. Prejudice to the Accused Detailed Analysis: 1. Adequacy of Legal Representation: The principal ground urged on behalf of the Appellant was that the belated appointment of the amicus curiae counsel deprived the Appellant of adequate legal aid, thereby impeding his ability to defend himself properly. The Appellant was appointed counsel on the day the trial began, which did not allow sufficient time for preparation. This was argued to be a breach of the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, which mandates that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to the procedure established by law. 2. Compliance with Procedural Rules: The main procedure for the trial of a criminal case is laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this case, there was no grievance that the procedure laid down therein was not followed by the Court of Session. However, the Appellant argued that supplementary provisions, specifically Rule 37 in Chapter V of the General Rules (Criminal), 1957, were breached. Rule 37 stipulates that in cases where a capital sentence is possible, and the accused has not engaged counsel and lacks sufficient means, the court must engage counsel to defend the accused. The rule also mandates that the appointed counsel be furnished with necessary papers free of cost and allowed sufficient time to prepare for the defense. 3. Interpretation of Rule 37 of the General Rules (Criminal), 1957: The court held that Rule 37 is a statutory rule and forms part of the procedure for the trial of criminal cases by courts subordinate to the High Court of Allahabad. The word "may" in Rule 37 was interpreted as a mandatory direction to the court to engage counsel if the conditions laid down in the rule are satisfied. The court emphasized that the purpose of the rule is to ensure that no accused person remains unrepresented by a lawyer if he is being tried on a charge for which a capital sentence can be awarded. 4. Validity of Conviction and Sentence in Light of Procedural Breach: The court found that there was non-compliance with the last clause of Rule 37, which requires that the appointed counsel be allowed sufficient time to prepare for the defense. The facts showed that the counsel was appointed on the same day the trial began, and there was no record indicating that sufficient time was granted to prepare the defense. The court held that this procedural breach rendered the trial invalid, as it resulted in the deprivation of the Appellant's life in breach of the procedure established by law. 5. Prejudice to the Accused: The court noted that the question of prejudice does not arise when a citizen is deprived of life without complying with the procedure prescribed by law. However, it was observed that there was, in fact, prejudice to the accused due to the non-compliance with Rule 37. The two principal witnesses were examined immediately after the appointment of the amicus curiae counsel, and the counsel later felt that he had not been able to cross-examine the sole eyewitness properly. The rejection of the application for the recall of the witness further indicated that the counsel had not been granted sufficient time to prepare the defense. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence of the Appellant due to the procedural error in the trial. The case was remanded to the Court of Session for a fresh trial, ensuring compliance with the requirements of law.
|
