By PTI
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court Thursday said it is the duty of the court to provide appropriate and meaningful legal aid to an accused at the State’s expense.
The top court said the State must ensure a fair defence to an accused, and it is the duty of the court to see and ensure that an accused put on a criminal trial is effectively represented by a defence counsel.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice UU Lalit made the observation while setting aside the death sentence to a man under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for murdering his wife and four children in Lakhimpur Kheri district of Uttar Pradesh in 2010.
“Though the offence is gruesome and revolts the human conscience but an accused can be convicted only on legal evidence and if only a chain of circumstantial evidence has been so forged as to rule out the possibility of any other reasonable hypothesis excepting the guilt of the accused,” the bench said.
It said that in the event on account of indigence, poverty or illiteracy or any other disabling factor, if an accused is not able to engage a counsel of his choice, it becomes the duty of the court to provide him appropriate and meaningful legal aid at the State expense.
“What is meant by the duty of the State to ensure a fair defence to an accused is not the employment of a defence counsel for namesake. It has to be the provision of a counsel who defends the accused diligently to the best of his abilities.”
“While the quality of the defence or the caliber of the counsel would not militate against the guarantee to a fair trial sanctioned by Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution, a threshold level of competence and due diligence in the discharge of his duties as a defence counsel would certainly be the constitutional guaranteed expectation,” the bench also comprising Justices S Ravindra Bhat and J B Pardiwala said.
The presence of counsel on record means effective, genuine and faithful presence and not a mere farcical, sham or a virtual presence that is illusory, if not fraudulent, it said.
Justice Pardiwala, who wrote the 93-page judgement on behalf of the bench said, indigence should never be a ground for denying fair trial or equal justice.
“Therefore, particular attention should be paid to appoint competent advocates, equal to handling the complex cases, not patronising gestures to raw entrants to the Bar.cSufficient time and complete papers should also be made available to the advocate chosen so that he may serve the cause of justice with all the ability at his command, and the accused also may feel confident that his counsel chosen by the court has had adequate time and material to defend him properly,” the top court said.
The apex court said this case “provides us an opportunity” to remind the District and Sessions Judges across the country conducting sessions trials, more particularly relating to serious offences involving severe sentences, to appoint experienced lawyers who had conducted such cases in the past.
“It is desirable that in such cases senior advocate practising in the trial court shall be requested to conduct the case himself or herself on behalf of the undefended accused or at least provide good guidance to the advocate who is appointed as amicus curiae or an advocate from the legal aid panel to defend the case of the accused persons.”
“Then only the effective and meaningful legal aid would be said to have been provided to the accused,” it said.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court Thursday said it is the duty of the court to provide appropriate and meaningful legal aid to an accused at the State’s expense.
The top court said the State must ensure a fair defence to an accused, and it is the duty of the court to see and ensure that an accused put on a criminal trial is effectively represented by a defence counsel.
A three-judge bench headed by Chief Justice UU Lalit made the observation while setting aside the death sentence to a man under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for murdering his wife and four children in Lakhimpur Kheri district of Uttar Pradesh in 2010.
“Though the offence is gruesome and revolts the human conscience but an accused can be convicted only on legal evidence and if only a chain of circumstantial evidence has been so forged as to rule out the possibility of any other reasonable hypothesis excepting the guilt of the accused,” the bench said.
It said that in the event on account of indigence, poverty or illiteracy or any other disabling factor, if an accused is not able to engage a counsel of his choice, it becomes the duty of the court to provide him appropriate and meaningful legal aid at the State expense.
“What is meant by the duty of the State to ensure a fair defence to an accused is not the employment of a defence counsel for namesake. It has to be the provision of a counsel who defends the accused diligently to the best of his abilities.”
“While the quality of the defence or the caliber of the counsel would not militate against the guarantee to a fair trial sanctioned by Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution, a threshold level of competence and due diligence in the discharge of his duties as a defence counsel would certainly be the constitutional guaranteed expectation,” the bench also comprising Justices S Ravindra Bhat and J B Pardiwala said.
The presence of counsel on record means effective, genuine and faithful presence and not a mere farcical, sham or a virtual presence that is illusory, if not fraudulent, it said.
Justice Pardiwala, who wrote the 93-page judgement on behalf of the bench said, indigence should never be a ground for denying fair trial or equal justice.
“Therefore, particular attention should be paid to appoint competent advocates, equal to handling the complex cases, not patronising gestures to raw entrants to the Bar.cSufficient time and complete papers should also be made available to the advocate chosen so that he may serve the cause of justice with all the ability at his command, and the accused also may feel confident that his counsel chosen by the court has had adequate time and material to defend him properly,” the top court said.
The apex court said this case “provides us an opportunity” to remind the District and Sessions Judges across the country conducting sessions trials, more particularly relating to serious offences involving severe sentences, to appoint experienced lawyers who had conducted such cases in the past.
“It is desirable that in such cases senior advocate practising in the trial court shall be requested to conduct the case himself or herself on behalf of the undefended accused or at least provide good guidance to the advocate who is appointed as amicus curiae or an advocate from the legal aid panel to defend the case of the accused persons.”
“Then only the effective and meaningful legal aid would be said to have been provided to the accused,” it said.
