Trial Court Has Duty To Inform Accused Of Right To Free Legal Aid When Accused Has No Means To Engage Advocate: Supreme Court

In a crucial decision, the Supreme Court today set aside the conviction of a man accused of committing a rape and murder of a nine-year-old minor who was not afforded proper legal aid during the trial. The Court was shocked to know that the prosecution witness examination-in-chief was conducted in absence of the legal aid to the accused, depriving the accused of objecting to the leading questions asked in the examination-in-chief. “We are surprised to note that the examination-in-chief of PW-1 was allowed to be recorded without giving legal aid counsel to the appellant, who was not represented by an advocate. If the examination-in-chief of a prosecution witness is recorded in the absence of the advocate for the accused, a very valuable right of objecting to the questions asked in examination-in-chief is taken away.”, the court observed. The bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and A.G. Masih highlighted the critical importance of ensuring free and effective legal aid for accused individuals throughout the trial process. The Court also emphasized the pivotal role of public prosecutors in assisting trial courts to uphold fairness and legal compliance in every trial. It stressed the need for public prosecutors to ensure that unrepresented accused persons are provided with free legal aid to protect their rights and ensure a just legal process. The appellant-accused challenged his conviction on the ground that during the trial, he was unrepresented till the framing of the charge, and the incriminating materials were not put to him while recording his Section 313 Cr.P.C. statements. According to the accused, he was entitled to acquittal on the grounds of the failure to put incriminating material to him in his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Further, the appellant-accused objected to the whole recovery process of the victim's slippers and underwear as highly doubtful as the place and time of recovery have not been mentioned in the recovery memo, and neither did the prosecution examine the two witnesses to the recovery memo. Setting aside the conviction of life imprisonment, the judgment authored by Justice Oka noted that failure to provide incriminating materials to the accused seriously prejudiced his case. “Unless all material circumstances appearing against him in evidence are put to the accused, he cannot decide whether he wants to lead any defence evidence. In this case, even the date and place of the crime allegedly committed by the appellant were not put to the appellant. What was reportedly seen by PW-2 was not put to the appellant in his examination. Therefore, the appellant was prejudiced.”, the court observed. Also, the Court outlined the role of the public prosecutors in assisting the trial courts in letting know the accused about the incriminating materials in the language understood by him. “A Public Prosecutor has to play an active role in ensuring that every trial is conducted in a fair manner and in accordance with the law. Hence, it is the Public Prosecutor's duty to invite the Court's attention to the requirement of putting all incriminating material to the accused. Therefore, the Public Prosecutor is under an obligation to remain present when the examination of the accused is made to assist the Court.”, the court said. The Court was surprised to note that the appellant was denied adequate legal representation during critical trial phases. The Court noted multiple instances of ineffective assistance, including missed opportunities for cross-examination. It said that the lack of effective legal aid constituted a breach of the appellant's rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. “Thus, the right to get legal aid is a fundamental right of the accused, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. Even under Section 303 of the CrPC, every accused has a right to be defended by a pleader of his choice. Section 304 provides for the grant of legal aid to an accused free of costs.When an accused has either not engaged an advocate or does not have sufficient means to engage an advocate, it is the trial court's duty to inform the accused of his right to obtain free legal aid, which is a right covered by Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”, the court said. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment convicting the appellant was set aside. The Court gave due credence to the efforts made by M.Shoeb Alam Senior Advocate appointed as amicus curiae to espouse the cause of the appellant, and K. Parameshwar Senior Advocate who appeared for the respondents for assisting the court.Also Read - 'Legal Aid Must Be Effective; Prosecutors Must Ensure Fair Trial' : Supreme Court Issues Guidelines To Legal Aid Lawyers, ProsecutorsCase Title: ASHOK VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESHCitation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 941Click here to read/download the judgment

Trial Court Has Duty To Inform Accused Of Right To Free Legal Aid When Accused Has No Means To Engage Advocate: Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

Tags