A Bench comprising Justices AS Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih highlighted deficiencies in cross-examination and violations of Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which ensures the accused can explain evidence against them.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court, in a judgment on Monday (3rd Nov), acquitted a man convicted of rape and murder, citing inadequate legal representation during his trial.
A Bench comprising Justices AS Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih highlighted deficiencies in cross-examination and violations of Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which ensures the accused can explain evidence against them.
“The appellant deserves acquittal due to the prosecution’s failure to present incriminating evidence during his examination under Section 313 of the CrPC. It is surprising that both the Trial Court and the High Court overlooked this significant procedural lapse,”
the Court observed.
The Bench expressed shock that the trial court had imposed the death penalty in a case that should have led to acquittal.
“It is shocking that the Trial Court imposed capital punishment in a case warranting acquittal. Such a decision deeply shocks the conscience of this Court,”
the judges remarked unequivocally.
SC Observations:
The accused lacked proper legal counsel during crucial stages, including the framing of charges and examination-in-chief of witnesses. The Court stressed that the absence of an advocate deprived the accused of fundamental rights, such as objecting to questions and effectively cross-examining witnesses.
The Court expressed shock that both the trial and High Court overlooked the failure to present incriminating evidence during the accused’s examination under Section 313 CrPC, a critical procedural safeguard.
The Bench criticized the imposition of the death penalty by the trial court, stating that it was unjust in a case warranting acquittal. “Capital punishment in such circumstances shocks the conscience of this Court,” it remarked.
Background
The accused was charged with raping and murdering a 10-year-old girl. According to the prosecution, the victim and her cousin were grazing goats when she sought water from a tube well operated by the accused.
Allegedly, he took her inside, committed the crime, and was later identified by the cousin. Convicted in 2012, he received the death penalty, later commuted to life imprisonment by the Allahabad High Court.
Supreme Court Directives for Public Prosecutors
The Court issued comprehensive guidelines to ensure fair trials and protect accused persons’ rights:
- Legal Aid: Courts must ensure accused individuals have proper legal representation.
- Public Prosecutor Duties: Prosecutors should highlight the need for legal aid if the accused lacks an advocate.
- Fair Trial Standards: Trials should not proceed without ensuring legal aid is available.
- Competent Representation: Legal aid advocates must be experienced, especially in cases involving severe sentences.
- Monitoring: Legal Services Authorities must oversee the performance and attendance of legal aid lawyers.
- Continuity: The same legal aid advocate should represent the accused throughout the trial unless compelling reasons exist.
Senior Advocate Shoeb Alam served as amicus curiae, with assistance from Talha Abdul Rahman. Senior Advocate K. Parameshwar represented the State of Uttar Pradesh.
