The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction and death sentence of Naveen, a 25-year-old street-dweller, accused of kidnapping, raping, and murdering a three-month-old infant. The apex court highlighted that the accused was not given a “proper opportunity” to defend himself during the trial, which was concluded in a record 23 days from the date of the offence.
A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, PS Narasimha, and Prashant Kumar Mishra observed,
“We are of the considered view that the trial court conducted the trial in a hurried manner without giving the accused a proper opportunity to defend himself. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and affirmed by the high court is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the trial court for de novo trial by according proper opportunity to the appellant to defend himself.”
The court further directed the trial court and the District Legal Services Authority, Indore, to provide the assistance of a senior counsel to Naveen for his defense during the trial. Senior Advocate BH Marlapalle, representing the appellant, remarked after the pronouncement,
“Something has to be done regarding the criminal jurisprudence of the high courts and the trial courts.”
Justice Gavai added,
“In another case, when I was sitting with Justice Pardiwala and Justice Sanjay Kumar, we had to do the same thing.”
The judgment, authored by Justice Mishra, pointed out several gaps in the prosecution’s case, including a strong reliance on circumstantial evidence. The court noted that the accused was not allowed a defense lawyer of his choice and was represented by a legal aid counsel. Furthermore, during the trial, which was conducted on a day-to-day basis, Naveen was given only a single day to produce expert witnesses. The court stated,
“It was impossible for the accused himself to produce the authors of the DNA reports in one day because the experts are government servants and could not have attended the court at the request of an accused in jail.”
Emphasizing the principle of a fair trial, the court elaborated on the concept of ‘judicial calm’, stating,
“In the hallowed halls of justice, the essence of a fair and impartial trial lies in the steadfast embrace of judicial calm. It is incumbent upon a judge to exude an aura of tranquillity, offering a sanctuary of reason and measured deliberation.”
The incident dates back to April 2018, when an infant was kidnapped near the historic Rajwada Fort in Indore. Her bloodied body was later found in a nearby building’s basement. Naveen was arrested the same day. After a swift investigation and trial, the verdict was pronounced on May 12 by the trial court, which was later upheld by the Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The High Court, while confirming the death sentence, observed,
“The rape of an infant is nothing but a monstrous burial of her dignity in the darkness. The act of the appellant/accused meets the test of ‘rarest of the rare case’.”
The Supreme Court’s decision to order a fresh trial underscores the importance of ensuring a fair trial for all, regardless of the nature of the crime.
Also read- POCSO Act Under Scrutiny: Calcutta High Court Advocates Rethink On Adolescent Consent (lawchakra.in)
