Supreme Court Acquits Convict in Rape-Murder Case Citing Absence of Legal Aid, Issues Significant Directives

Post By 24law
December 3, 2024

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a man accused of the rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl, citing a failure to provide adequate legal aid during the trial. The Court expressed its dismay upon learning that the examination-in-chief of a key prosecution witness was conducted without legal representation for the accused, depriving him of the opportunity to object to leading questions.

“We are surprised to note that the examination-in-chief of PW-1 was allowed to be recorded without giving legal aid counsel to the appellant, who was not represented by an advocate. If the examination-in-chief of a prosecution witness is recorded in the absence of the advocate for the accused, a very valuable right of objecting to the questions asked in examination-in-chief is taken away,” the Court observed (Refer page no. 30 of the opriginal order).

Importance of Legal Aid

The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and A.G. Masih, emphasized the critical role of free and effective legal aid throughout the trial process. It highlighted the responsibility of public prosecutors to ensure fairness and legal compliance, particularly in cases where the accused is unrepresented. The Court stated: “A Public Prosecutor has to play an active role in ensuring that every trial is conducted in a fair manner and in accordance with the law. Hence, it is the Public Prosecutor's duty to invite the Court's attention to the requirement of putting all incriminating material to the accused” (Refer page no.18 of the original order).

Deficiencies in the Trial Process

The appellant argued that he was unrepresented during the trial's initial stages, including the framing of charges, and that incriminating evidence was not properly presented to him during his Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination.

Justice Oka, authoring the judgment, noted that these procedural lapses significantly prejudiced the appellant's defense. “Unless all material circumstances appearing against him in evidence are put to the accused, he cannot decide whether he wants to lead any defence evidence. In this case, even the date and place of the crime allegedly committed by the appellant were not put to the appellant. What was reportedly seen by PW-2 was not put to the appellant in his examination. Therefore, the appellant was prejudiced” (Refer page no.16 of the original order). The Court also found the recovery process for the victim's belongings, such as slippers and underwear, dubious due to inconsistencies in the recovery memo and the absence of key witnesses.

The Court underscored the violation of the appellant’s rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees legal aid as a fundamental right. It emphasized the trial court's obligation to inform the accused about the availability of free legal aid. “Thus, the right to get legal aid is a fundamental right of the accused, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Even under Section 303 of the CrPC, every accused has a right to be defended by a pleader of his choice. Section 304 provides for the grant of legal aid to an accused free of costs” (Refer page no.27 of the original order).

The Supreme Court found multiple instances of ineffective assistance of counsel, including missed opportunities for cross-examination. Observing that these deficiencies undermined the fairness of the trial, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the appellant’s conviction.