Held: The Order-sheet would clearly indicate that the trial was conducted in a hurried manner without providing ample and proper opportunity to the defence counsel, who was engaged through legal aid, to prepare himself effectively – It is also to be noted that copies of DNA Report, FSL Report and Viscera Report were not submitted along with the charge-sheet and were presented before the Court during the course of trial – When the reports were challenged by the accused before the High Court, it was brushed aside by observing that even if the authors of the reports were not called for evidence, in terms of Section 293 Cr.P.C., the reports are not open to question as the defence had an opportunity to cross-examine the authors of the reports during the trial – High Court was not correct in saying that the defence had an opportunity to cross-examine the experts – Accused, who was in jail and defended by a counsel from legal aid, was compelled by the Trial Court to produce defence witness of his own in one day – It was impossible for the accused himself to produce doctors, the authors of the Reports (Ex.P-72), in one day because the said experts are government servants and could not have attended the Court at the request of an accused in jail – There was no opportunity, in the real sense, to the appellant to cross-examine the experts – Therefore, the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial court for de novo trial by affording proper opportunity to the appellant to defend himself. [Paras 8, 10, 21, 22]
Criminal Trial – Fair Trial – Definition of:
Held: There can be no analytical, all-comprehensive or exhaustive definition of the concept of a fair trial, and it may have to be determined in seemingly infinite variety of actual situations with the ultimate object in mind viz. whether something that was done or said either before or at the trial deprived the quality of fairness to a degree where a miscarriage of justice has resulted – Each one has an inbuilt right to be dealt with fairly in a criminal trial – Denial of a fair trial is as much injustice to the accused as is to the victim and the society – Fair trial obviously would mean a trial before an impartial judge, a fair prosecutor, and the atmosphere of judicial calm – Fair trial means a trial in which bias or prejudice for or against the accused, the witnesses, or the cause which is being tried is eliminated – It is inherent in the concept of due process of law, that condemnation should be rendered only after the trial in which the hearing is a real one, not sham or a mere farce and pretence – Since fair hearing requires an opportunity to preserve the process, it may be vitiated and violated by an overhasty, stage-managed, tailored and partisan trial – It is thus settled that a hasty trial in which proper and sufficient opportunity has not been provided to the accused to defend himself/herself would vitiate the trial as being meaningless & stage-managed – It is in violation of the principle of judicial calm. [Para 16]
Principle/Doctrine – Judicial Calm – Discussed. [Paras 16, 17] LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Bashira vs. State of U.P. AIR 1968 SC 1313 : [1969] SCR 32; Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors (2004) 4 SCC 158 : [2004] 3 SCR 1050; Anokhilal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019) 20 SCC 196: Rahul v. State of Delhi, Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr (2023) 1 SCC 83; Manoj & Ors. Vs. State of M.P (2023) 2 SCC 353: Anil @ Anthony Arikswamy Joseph Vs. State of Maharashtra (2014) 4 SCC 69 : [2014] 3 SCR 34 – relied on.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.