Supreme Court Criticises 'Undue Haste' Of Trial Court In Awarding Death Penalty In 2 Months Without Proper Opportunity For Defence

The Supreme Court recently, while quashing the death penalty of the present appellant/accused, observed that the reliance on the DNA report without examining scientific experts led to the failure of justice, thereby, vitiating the trial. The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta pointed out that the trial was completed in less than two months without giving the accused an appropriate opportunity to defend themselves. Thus, the trial process exhibited “undue haste.”The instant case involves capital punishment and thus, providing a fair opportunity to the accused to defend himself is absolutely imperative and non-negotiable., the Court reasoned.“The trial in the case at hand was concluded without providing appropriate opportunity of defending to the accused and within and within a period of less than two months from the date of registration of the case, which is reflective of undue haste. The failure of the trial Court to ensure the deposition of the scientific experts while relying upon the DNA report, has definitely led to the failure of justice thereby, vitiating the trial.”While remanding the matter to the Trial Court for a fresh trial, directed the summoning of the concerned scientific experts. The experts were directed to be examined as Court witnesses with a proper opportunity for examination by both parties.In the present case, the appellants were prosecuted for criminal offences including kidnapping and an attempt to murder a girl studying in the 3rd standard. However, with respect to offence under 376(DB) (Punishment for gang rape on a woman under twelve years of age) of the IPC, the appellants were awarded the death penalty.The same was confirmed by the High Court, in reference made by the trial Court. Challenging this, the appellants approached the Supreme Court. Pertinently, the appellants had also filed an application seeking complete laboratory documents and examination of expert witnesses.After perusing the arguments advanced, the Court said that the prosecution did not examine any of the scientific experts involved in conducting the DNA profiling.“The DNA profiling report is a document on which the entire fulcrum of the prosecution case is based. The defence has claimed grave prejudice on account of non-examination of these scientific witnesses and the non-production of the experts in evidence, thereby creating a grave doubt on the probative value of the report.,” the Court added.The Court also drew its strength from several judgments including Naveen @ Ajay v. State of Madhya Pradesh. Therein, since the scientific experts were not called to prove the DNA report, the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for de novo trial. The Court had also held that the accused was not given a proper opportunity to defend himself.In view of this, the Court remanded the matter. It also made it clear that in case the accused are not represented by a counsel of their choice, a defence counsel in accordance with its decision in Anokhilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh shall be appointed. In this case, the Court had laid down several guidelines including: “In all cases where there is a possibility of life sentence or death sentence, learned advocates who have put in minimum of 10 years' practice at the Bar alone be considered to be appointed as Amicus Curiae or through legal services to represent an accused.”Before parting, the Court clarified that the Trial Court shall again hear the arguments and decide the case afresh. Apart from this, the Court also prescribed a timeline of four months for completing the trial.“That the discussion made above is confined to the issue of the right of the accused to seek examination of the scientific experts connected with the DNA report and the same shall not be taken to be a reflection on the merits of the matter, which shall be considered and gone into, uninfluenced by any observations made by us in this order.,” the Court clarified before allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned orders.Appearances:Appellant: Mr. Siddharth Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Ms. Shreya Rastogi, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Jain, Adv. Mr. Vishwajeet Bhati, Adv. Mr. Karan Dhalla, Adv. Mr. Mangesh Naik, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Irshad Hanif, AOR, Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Shukla, Adv. Ms. Reetu Sharma, AOR Mr. H .R. Khan, Adv. Mr. Nihal Ahmad, Adv. Mr. Tushar Swami, Adv. Mr. Kunal Yadav, Adv. Mr. Shantanu Shukla, Adv. Ms. Ishita Chowdhury, Adv. Mr. Madhav Gupta, Adv. Ms. Sabiha Fatma, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Sarup, Adv.Respondent: Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan, AOR Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, AOR Ms. Yashmita Pandey, Adv. Case Name: IRFAN VERSUS STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH., CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1667-1668 OF 2021Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 167Click here to read/ download the judgment

Supreme Court Criticises 'Undue Haste' Of Trial Court In Awarding Death Penalty In 2 Months Without Proper Opportunity For Defence

Gyanvi Khanna

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gyanvi Khanna

Supreme Court Criticises 'Undue Haste' Of Trial Court In Awarding Death Penalty In 2 Months Without Proper Opportunity For Defence

Gyanvi Khanna

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Gyanvi Khanna

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers