Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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

Latest Legal News