2019 (12) TMI 1622 - SC - Indian Laws

Sexual Offence - framing of charges - examination of witnesses - execution of death sentences - Section 313 of Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT - In the present case the Amicus Curiae was appointed on 19.02.2013 and on the same date the counsel was called upon to defend the accused at the stage of framing of charges. One can say with certainty that the Amicus Curiae did not have sufficient time to go through even the basic documents nor the advantage of any discussion or interaction with the accused and time to reflect over the matter. Thus even before the Amicus Curiae could come to grips of the matter the charges were framed - the concerned provisions viz. Sections 227 and 228 of the Code contemplate framing of charge upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in that behalf . If the hearing for the purposes of these provisions is to be meaningful and not just a routine affair the right under the said provisions stood denied to the appellant. The Trial Court on its own ought to have adjourned the matter for some time so that the Amicus Curiae could have had the advantage of sufficient time to prepare the matter. The approach adopted by the Trial Court in our view may have expedited the conduct of trial but did not further the cause of justice. Not only were the charges framed the same day as stated above but the trial itself was concluded within a fortnight thereafter. In the process the assistance that the appellant was entitled to in the form of legal aid could not be real and meaningful. Expeditious disposal is undoubtedly required in criminal matters and that would naturally be part of guarantee of fair trial. However the attempts to expedite the process should not be at the expense of the basic elements of fairness and the opportunity to the accused on which postulates the entire criminal administration of justice is founded. In the pursuit for expeditious disposal the cause of justice must never be allowed to suffer or be sacrificed. What is paramount is the cause of justice and keeping the basic ingredients which secure that as a core idea and ideal the process may be expedited but fast tracking of process must never ever result in burying the cause of justice. We have no hesitation in setting aside the judgments of conviction and orders of sentence passed by the Trial Court and the High Court against the appellant and directing de novo consideration. It shall be open to the learned counsel representing the appellant in the Trial Court to make any submissions touching upon the issues (i) whether the charges framed by the Trial Court are required to be amended or not; (ii) whether any of the prosecution witnesses need to be recalled for further cross-examination; and (iii) whether any expert evidence is required to be led in response to the FSL report and DNA report. The matter shall thereafter be considered on the basis of available material on record in accordance with law. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Adequacy of legal representation and fairness of trial.
2. Compliance with statutory timeframes and procedural fairness.
3. Validity of the death sentence and other convictions.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Adequacy of Legal Representation and Fairness of Trial:
The primary contention was that the trial was conducted without fairness, prejudicing the appellant-accused. The appellant's counsel was appointed on the same day charges were framed, providing insufficient time for preparation. This lack of preparation time meant the counsel could not study the matter or interact with the accused adequately, violating the appellant's right to a fair trial. The judgment references multiple precedents, including Bashira vs. State of U.P. (1969) and Mohd. Hussain Alias Julfikar Ali vs. State (2012), emphasizing that adequate time and preparation are fundamental for a fair defense. The court concluded that the trial court should have adjourned the matter to allow sufficient preparation time for the defense counsel, thus ensuring a fair trial.

2. Compliance with Statutory Timeframes and Procedural Fairness:
The trial's expeditious nature, concluding within a month, raised concerns about procedural fairness. The examination of 13 witnesses within seven days, the premature examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and the delayed receipt of crucial DNA and FSL reports compromised the trial's integrity. The judgment highlights that while expeditious trials are desirable, they must not compromise the fundamental principles of fairness and justice. The court cited V.K. Sasikala vs. State Represented by Superintendent of Police (2012) to stress that expediting trials should not sacrifice the cause of justice.

3. Validity of the Death Sentence and Other Convictions:
The trial court's judgment, affirmed by the High Court, imposed a death sentence and other severe penalties on the appellant. However, the Supreme Court found that the trial's procedural deficiencies, particularly the inadequate legal representation, resulted in a miscarriage of justice. The court referenced several cases, including Ankush Maruti Shinde vs. State of Maharashtra (2009), to emphasize the necessity of fair legal representation, especially in cases involving severe penalties like the death sentence. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the convictions and sentences, directing a de novo trial to ensure justice is served.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the trial was conducted in a manner that compromised the appellant's right to a fair trial. The inadequate time for defense preparation and procedural lapses necessitated setting aside the convictions and sentences. The court directed a de novo trial, emphasizing the importance of fair legal representation and procedural fairness, particularly in cases involving severe penalties. The judgment also laid down guidelines to prevent similar issues in future cases, ensuring that legal aid is meaningful and effective.