CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness

Hasty Trial Deprived Accused of Fair Trial in Rape-Murder Case – Denovo Trial: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


On 19 October 2023, In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court of India has set aside the conviction and sentence of an appellant in a harrowing rape and murder case, citing that a hasty trial deprived the accused of a fair opportunity to defend himself. The case, which had attracted national attention, involved the rape and murder of a three-month-old girl child.

The judgment, delivered by Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, emphasized the critical importance of ensuring a fair trial in criminal cases and highlighted the detrimental effects of rushed proceedings on the accused's right to a robust defense. Justice Mishra stated, "The trial was conducted in a hurried manner without providing ample and proper opportunity to the defense counsel, who was engaged through legal aid, to prepare himself effectively."

The court found that the trial had proceeded on a day-to-day basis, with witnesses being produced without issuing summons, leaving limited time for the defense to prepare adequately. Furthermore, the accused was not given the opportunity to engage a counsel of his choice and had to rely on a legal aid counsel. The judgment noted that even expert reports, including DNA evidence, were presented late during the trial, hindering the accused's ability to challenge them effectively.

Justice Mishra cited previous judgments and principles emphasizing the need for a fair and impartial trial, stating, "A fair trial means a trial in which bias or prejudice for or against the accused, the witnesses, or the cause being tried is eliminated." The judgment also underscored the importance of a trial judge exuding an aura of tranquility and providing sufficient time for preparation.

In light of these observations, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and the High Court, and the matter has been remitted back to the trial court for a de novo trial. The court has directed the trial court and the District Legal Services Authority to provide the appellant with the assistance of a senior counsel to ensure a fair and just trial.

This judgment serves as a reminder of the crucial role that a fair trial plays in upholding the principles of justice, even in cases that evoke strong emotions and public outrage.

Date of Decision: 19 October 2023

NAVEEN @ AJAY  vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Latest Legal News