'Even Person Accused Of Heinous Crimes Entitled To Basic Protection Of Law' : Supreme Court Sets Aside Death Penalty For Lack Of Fair Trial

The Supreme Court recently set aside the death sentence of a man accused of killing his wife and 12-year-old daughter, after noting that he was denied a fair trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta allowed the man's appeal, overturning the Allahabad High Court's decision that had convicted him of murder and imposed the death penalty.The Court noted several lapses in the trial resulting in the denial of a fair trial. The defense counsel was absent during the examination of key prosecution witnesses and the opportunity for cross-examination was closed without proper representation. Moreover, the defence statements were not properly recorded as the questions put to the appellant were general and did not cover all incriminating circumstances, leading to potential prejudice. Since the appellant's counsel was changed frequently and was given less and appropriate time to prepare for the case, the Court emphasized that the mere appointment of legal aid counsel is insufficient; the representation must be "effective and meaningful.". Referring to the recent case of Anokhilal v. State of M.P. (2019), the Court found that the trial court's failure to ensure competent legal representation constituted a clear infringement of the Appellant's fundamental rights. “This frequent change in counsel as also the matter being reserved for judgment on the very day that a new counsel for the accused is brought on record, leads us to question the assistance given to the appellant by such lawyers. Was his case effectively argued? Were all the possible gaps in the prosecution case sufficiently explored and exploited to his advantage? Were the prosecution witnesses ably cross-examined leading to the creation of a reasonable doubt, wherever possible? All these questions arise in our mind, considering the situation of the defence counsel. To us, the imposition of the death penalty here appears fraught with danger and should not be sustained. We are supported in holding such an apprehension by the fact that this Court has recognized that sufficient time should be given to counsel to prepare the case and conduct the same on behalf of his client. Although, it is true that there can be no formulae for what may be considered. Whereas on other dates his presence was recorded sufficient, the same has to be determined in the facts and circumstances of the case. [See: Bashira v. State of U.P.] As has already been noticed, there was a change of counsel recorded in the daily status of the Trial Court, arguments were closed on the very same day and the matter was reserved for judgment. What is the efficiency of the newly appointed counsel's assistance to the appellant? This question stares in the face of the conclusion of capital punishment arrived at by the Court, more so when there was a frequent change of counsel during trial, losing out the continuity of thought process.”, the court observed. Also, the Court referred to the international law obligations, particularly the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which guarantee fair trial, and representation to the accused even though the accused had committed gravest and most heinous crimes. Also citing Rome statute regarding the accused right to fair trial, the Court observed: “What rights of an accused being codified in the Rome Statute signifies is that even when it comes to the gravest and most heinous crimes committed against humanity as a whole, a person accused of having so committed such offences is also entitled to basic protection under the law. In our facts, ending someone's life is, in fact, one of the gravest crimes that a person may commit, and so even here the accused is entitled to the protection of law ensuring that the process that condemns him as 'convicted of an offence', is free of procedural irregularities and blemishes which may call into question the credibility of the conclusion arrived at by such a process.” The Court emphasized that in capital punishment cases, the highest standards of procedural fairness must be adhered to. Accordingly, the Court set aside the conviction and death sentence imposed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court. The case was remanded to the Trial Court for a fresh trial, starting from the stage of framing charges.Case Title: SOVARAN SINGH PRAJAPATI VERSUS THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.259-260 OF 2019Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 213Click here to read/download the judgmentAppearance: For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajiv Shakdhar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aditya Verma, AOR Ms. Shreya Rastogi, Adv. Ms. Aathma Sudhir Kumar, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Jain, Adv. Mr. Karan Khetani, Adv. Mr. Jonathan Ivan Rajan, Adv. Mr. K Rigved Prasad, Adv. Mr. Samar Singh, Adv. Ms. Parkhi Rai, Adv. Mr. Mangesh Naik, Adv. For Respondent(s) :Mr. Divyesh Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Shashank Shekhar Singh, ...

'Even Person Accused Of Heinous Crimes Entitled To Basic Protection Of Law' : Supreme Court Sets Aside Death Penalty For Lack Of Fair Trial

Yash Mittal

Tags