Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention and Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored” - Punjab & Haryana High Court Emphasizes Bail as the Rule Taxation Law | Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules Hotel’s Expenditures on Carpets, Mattresses, and Lampshades are Deductible as Current Expenditures Orissa High Court Upholds Disengagement of Teacher for Unauthorized Absence and Suppression of Facts In Disciplined Forces, Transfers are an Administrative Necessity; Judicial Interference is Limited to Cases of Proven Mala Fide: Patna High Court Act Of Judge, When Free From Oblique Motive, Cannot Be Questioned: Madhya Pradesh High Court Quashes Disciplinary Proceedings Against Additional Collector Registration Act | False Statements in Conveyance Documents Qualify for Prosecution Under Registration Act: Kerala High Court When Junior is Promoted, Senior’s Case Cannot be Deferred Unjustly: Karnataka High Court in Sealed Cover Promotion Dispute Medical Training Standards Cannot Be Lowered, Even for Disability’ in MBBS Admission Case: Delhi HC Suspicion, However Strong It May Be, Cannot Take Place Of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Acquittal No Detention Order Can Rely on Grounds Already Quashed: High Court Sets Precedent on Preventive Detention Limits Tenant's Claims of Hardship and Landlord's Alternate Accommodations Insufficient to Prevent Eviction: Allahabad HC Further Custodial Detention May Not Be Necessary: Calcutta High Court Grants Bail in Murder Case Citing Lack of Specific Evidence High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court

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