2012 (1) TMI 403 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Appellant was given a fair and impartial trial.
2. Whether the Appellant was denied the right of a Counsel.

Summary:

1. Fair and Impartial Trial:
The Appellant, an illiterate foreign national, was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, without the assignment of Counsel for his defense. This conviction was confirmed by the High Court. The Appellant was charged u/s 302/307 IPC and u/s 3 of the Explosive Substances Act for a bomb explosion on 30-12-1997, which resulted in deaths and injuries. The trial court's proceedings revealed that the Appellant was not represented by a Counsel for a significant part of the trial, during which 56 out of 65 prosecution witnesses were examined without cross-examination by the defense. The Supreme Court emphasized that the right to a fair trial includes the right to cross-examine witnesses and that the trial court failed to ensure this right, thus violating Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India.

2. Right of a Counsel:
The Appellant was initially assisted by a State-appointed Counsel during the committal proceedings. However, the Counsel did not appear for significant portions of the trial, and the trial court did not appoint another Counsel until the later stages of the trial. The Supreme Court highlighted that the right to be defended by a Counsel is fundamental to a fair trial. The trial court's failure to appoint a Counsel when the Appellant's Counsel was absent amounted to a denial of due process of law. The Court cited several precedents underscoring the necessity of legal representation for ensuring a fair trial.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge and affirmed by the High Court, remanding the case to the Trial Court for fresh disposal. The Trial Court was directed to ensure that the Appellant is provided with legal assistance throughout the trial if he is unable to engage a Counsel of his choice. Additionally, Justice C.K. Prasad, in a separate judgment, concurred that the Appellant's conviction and sentence should be set aside due to the lack of a fair trial but opined against remanding the case for a fresh trial, directing instead that the Appellant be deported to his country.