-
by sayum
20 December 2025 7:40 AM
"The appointment of a defence counsel must not be a mere formality; it must ensure real, effective, and meaningful representation," - Orissa High Court addressing grave concerns surrounding the right to a fair trial. The Court set aside the conviction and death sentence imposed on Sanjeeb Kerketta, accused of heinous crimes under the IPC and POCSO Act, and directed a fresh de novo trial. The ruling strongly emphasized that any violation of fundamental procedural safeguards — especially the right to effective legal assistance — vitiates a criminal trial.
The case arose from a horrifying incident dated 21st October 2016, where a minor girl aged around 5 years was abducted during the night, sexually assaulted, and murdered. The investigation led to the arrest of Sanjeeb Kerketta, who was charged under Sections 450, 366, 376(2)(i), 376-A, 302, 201 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act. The Trial Court, upon conclusion of proceedings in October 2023, awarded a death sentence to the accused.
However, allegations of procedural irregularities during the trial, including denial of meaningful legal representation and other fundamental lapses, prompted the High Court to undertake a thorough review.
The pivotal legal issue was whether the accused had received a fair trial in consonance with Article 21 of the Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court found that the trial was marred by multiple procedural lapses.
"It is not enough to appoint a lawyer for an indigent accused; the legal representation must be real, substantive, and effective," the Court stressed.
The Court meticulously examined the sequence of appointments and withdrawals of successive State Defence Counsels (SDCs) and noted, "The appointed counsel either withdrew soon after appointment or failed to appear during crucial stages of trial, leaving the accused practically undefended."
On the accused’s examination under Section 313 CrPC, the Court found that "the questions posed to the accused were lengthy, confusing, and conglomerated, depriving him of the real opportunity to explain each incriminating circumstance individually."
The Court further noted that the trial court "did not ensure furnishing of police papers or adequate time to the counsel for meaningful defence preparation," thereby violating Section 304 CrPC and Supreme Court guidelines in Ashok vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anokhilal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh.
The Bench, comprising Justice B.P. Routray and Justice Chittaranjan Dash, held that the trial was constitutionally impermissible.
"The right to a fair trial is not a luxury for the accused but a constitutional guarantee integral to the administration of justice," the Court reiterated.
Highlighting the "cavalier manner" in which the trial was conducted, the Court emphasized that even in cases involving heinous offences, "expeditious disposal cannot come at the cost of fairness and due process."
Regarding sentencing, the Court criticized the Trial Court for conducting sentencing proceedings on the same day as the conviction, without granting time for considering mitigating circumstances. "In capital punishment cases, a separate and substantive hearing on sentencing is mandatory," the Court observed, citing Santa Singh vs. State of Punjab and Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab.
In culmination, the Orissa High Court unequivocally held: "In view of serious procedural irregularities, and grave prejudice caused to the accused, the entire trial stands vitiated."
Accordingly, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, remanding the matter to the Trial Court for a fresh trial from the stage of framing charges. The Trial Court has been directed to conclude the retrial within six months, ensuring scrupulous adherence to fair trial norms.
Date of Decision: 23 April 2025
