Pranav B Prem

The Supreme Court has recently set aside the death sentence of a man accused of murdering his wife and 12-year-old daughter, holding that the trial proceedings suffered from grave procedural lapses, violating his fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Bench and Case Background

A three-judge bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta allowed the appeal of Sovaran Singh Prajapati, overturning the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had confirmed the capital punishment imposed by the Trial Court. The appellant had been convicted under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly murdering his wife Mamta and daughter Sapna in June 2014. The Court found multiple procedural irregularities that significantly undermined the accused’s right to a fair trial. Among the key deficiencies noted were the absence of the defense counsel during crucial stages, lack of opportunity for cross-examination, improper recording of the accused’s statement under Section 313 CrPC, and frequent changes in legal representation without adequate time for preparation.

Fair Trial and Legal Representation

Emphasizing the fundamental principle that every accused, irrespective of the severity of charges, is entitled to fair trial protections, the Court referred to the international legal framework, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the Rome Statute.

Citing the Rome Statute, the Court observed: “What rights of an accused being codified in the Rome Statute signifies is that even when it comes to the gravest and most heinous crimes committed against humanity as a whole, a person accused of having so committed such offences is also entitled to basic protection under the law. In our facts, ending someone's life is, in fact, one of the gravest crimes that a person may commit, and so even here the accused is entitled to the protection of law ensuring that the process that condemns him as 'convicted of an offence', is free of procedural irregularities and blemishes which may call into question the credibility of the conclusion arrived at by such a process.”

The Court strongly criticized the manner in which the trial was conducted. The records revealed that the appellant’s defense counsel was absent during the examination of crucial prosecution witnesses. The opportunity for cross-examination was denied, and his legal representation was changed frequently, affecting the quality of his defense.

Referring to Anokhilal v. State of M.P. (2019), the Court emphasized that mere appointment of a legal aid counsel does not suffice; the representation must be “effective and meaningful.” It further noted that the trial court failed in its duty to ensure that the accused received competent legal assistance, which is an essential element of the right to a fair trial. The Court also highlighted: “This frequent change in counsel as also the matter being reserved for judgment on the very day that a new counsel for the accused is brought on record, leads us to question the assistance given to the appellant by such lawyers. Was his case effectively argued? Were all the possible gaps in the prosecution case sufficiently explored and exploited to his advantage? Were the prosecution witnesses ably cross-examined leading to the creation of a reasonable doubt, wherever possible? All these questions arise in our mind, considering the situation of the defence counsel. To us, the imposition of the death penalty here appears fraught with danger and should not be sustained.”

Role of Courts in Ensuring a Fair Trial

The Court reiterated that a fair trial is a constitutional mandate under Article 21 and must be adhered to, especially in capital punishment cases where the highest standards of procedural fairness are required. The Court referred to previous judgments, including Best Bakery Case (2004) and Sidhartha Vashisht v. State (2010), to stress that criminal trials must be conducted impartially, protecting the rights of both the accused and the society.

Further, the Court criticized the trial court for failing to prevent procedural lapses and observed that the appointment of amicus curiae should not be a mere formality. The lack of consistent legal representation and the abrupt conclusion of the trial without adequate defense preparation raised serious concerns about the justness of the conviction and sentence. The Court also emphasized that in cases of capital punishment, appellate courts have an enhanced duty to meticulously scrutinize the trial process. It reaffirmed that procedural fairness is not merely a statutory requirement but a fundamental necessity to ensure that justice is served without prejudice.

Verdict

In light of these findings, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction and death sentence imposed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court. The matter was remanded to the Trial Court for a fresh trial, beginning from the stage of framing charges, ensuring that the accused receives a fair opportunity to defend himself.

Cause Title: Sovaran Singh Prajapati V. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 259-260 OF 2019

Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Sandeep Mehta

[Read/Downlaod order]