Contradictions In Eyewitness Accounts And Suppression Of Crucial Evidence Weaken The Prosecution's Case: Telangana High Court High Court of Sikkim Sets Aside Trial Court’s Decision on Maintainability of Suit: Preliminary Issues Must Be Purely of Law Courts Must Focus on Substance Over Procedure, Says High Court Writ Petitions Against Civil Court Orders Must Be Under Article 227: Patna High Court Reiterates Jurisdictional Boundaries Kerala High Court Upholds Eviction, Rejects Sub-Tenant's Kudikidappu Claim Contractual Employment Does Not Confer Right to Regularization: Jharkhand High Court Divorced Wife Entitled to Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act for Past Domestic Violence: Bombay High Court Tenants Cannot Prescribe How Landlords Utilize Their Property: Delhi High Court Validates Eviction Labour Commissioner to Decide Petitioner’s Date of Birth Claim within Three Months, Ensuring Proper Verification and Consideration of Evidence: Uttarakhand High Court Concealment of Health Condition and False Allegations Amount to Cruelty: Gujarat High Court Upholds Divorce Decree Possession Implies Constructive Notice: Duty to Inquire Rests on Subsequent Purchasers: Supreme Court Clarifies Bona Fide Purchase Standards Judicial Proceedings Cannot Be Instituted After Four Years: MP High Court in Quashing FIR Against Retired Engineer Orissa High Court Invalidates Lecturer Recruitment Advertisements for Non-Compliance with UGC Standards Public Interest Jurisdiction Not a Substitute for Private Litigation: Karnataka High Court Declines PIL Cognizance under Section 188 IPC is illegal without a public servant’s complaint:Kerala High Court Juvenile Justice Act Prevails Over Recruitment Rules: Madras High Court Rules Juvenile Records Cannot Bar Employment in Police Services" Calcutta High Court Quashes MR Distributorship Selection Due to Irregularities in Godown Compliance and Selection Process Once the driver has established the validity of his license, the insurer cannot escape liability without conclusive proof to the contrary: J&K HC Belated Claims Cannot Be Entertained: Kerala High Court Overturns CAT Decision on Date of Birth Correction DNA Tests Cannot Supersede Established Legal Presumptions: Himachal Pradesh HC Section 26E of SARFAESI Act Overrides VAT Act: Secured Creditor's Charge Has Priority Over State's Tax Dues: Gujrat High Court High Court of Delhi Clarifies Jurisdiction in Commercial Dispute: 'Procedural Efficiency Must Be Upheld Power Under Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Exercised Without Prima Facie Case Beyond Contradictions: Supreme Court Motive Alone Insufficient for Conviction Without Corroboration: Supreme Court Supreme Court Ensures Equal Financial Benefits for All High Court Judges: Discrimination Based on Recruitment Source Struck Down Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Four Accused: Cites Contradictory Dying Declarations and Lack of Independent Evidence in Murder Case Evidence Corroborates Violent Robbery and Recovery of Stolen Articles: Calcutta High Court Upholds Conviction in Burrabazar Dacoity Case Failure to Implead Contesting Candidates is Fatal; Fundamental Defect Cannot Be Cured: Bombay High Court Dismisses Election Petition Magistrate Not Functus Officio Post-Final Order in Maintenance Cases: Allahabad High Court Substantial Questions of Law a Must in Second Appeals, Reiterates Andhra Pradesh High Court Inconsistencies and Procedural Lapses: Allahabad High Court Acquits Four in Neeta Singh Murder Case

Failure to Appoint Legal Aid Lawyer Violates Fair Trial: Supreme Court Sets Aside Trial Procedure, Orders De Novo Trial

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, allowed the criminal appeals in the case of Ekene Godwin & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu, emphasizing the necessity of legal representation for a fair trial.

The core issue addressed was the violation of the right to a fair trial due to the absence of legal representation for the appellants during the examination-in-chief of prosecution witnesses. The bench scrutinized the conduct of the Trial Court under the provisions of Sections 419, 420 of the IPC, Sections 66, 43(J), and 66D of the IT Act, and Sections 242 of the CrPC and 138 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The appellants, prosecuted under various sections of the IPC and IT Act, faced trial without legal representation. The High Court had earlier rejected their bail application. The Supreme Court took cognizance of the unusual procedure adopted by the Trial Court in recording the examination-in-chief of 12 prosecution witnesses without legal representation for the appellants.

Justice Oka observed, "Before recording the examination-in-chief of the first prosecution witness, after finding that the appellants-accused had not engaged any Advocate, the Trial Court ought to have provided a legal aid Advocate." Highlighting procedural lapses, the Court noted the importance of an advocate's presence during the examination-in-chief for raising objections to inappropriate questions. The bench criticized the Trial Court for not seeking an extension from the High Court despite being constrained by a time-bound schedule, resulting in a hasty and irregular trial process.

Granting bail to the appellants, the Court mandated a re-trial (de novo) with proper legal representation. Stringent bail conditions were imposed, including the surrender of passports. The Supreme Court's directive for a fresh trial underscores the justice system's commitment to ensuring a fair trial, particularly in the context of legal representation.

Date of Decision: March 18, 2024

Ekene Godwin & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu

Similar News