Denied Effective Defence, Legal Assistance During Trial: Telangana HC Sets Aside Conviction For Dowry Demand & Murder, Orders De-Novo Trial
While setting aside a man's conviction for murder of his wife, cruelty and for demanding dowry the Telangana High Court directed a "fresh de novo trial" after noting that the accused was not properly represented by a counsel before the trial court underscoring that he was "deprived of an effective defence". A division bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao passed...
While setting aside a man's conviction for murder of his wife, cruelty and for demanding dowry the Telangana High Court directed a "fresh de novo trial" after noting that the accused was not properly represented by a counsel before the trial court underscoring that he was "deprived of an effective defence".
A division bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao passed the order in a criminal appeal challenging the order of conviction for offences under IPC Sections 302(murder), 498A (cruelty) and demand of dowry under the Dowry Prohibition Act. He was sentenced to life imprisonment as well.
Referring to Supreme Court's larger bench's decision in Mohd. Hussain alias Zulfikar Ali vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) (2012) and the apex court's decision in Ashok vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) the high court held:
“Thus, from the plain reading of the depositions and the manner in which the witnesses were let-off without there being effective cross examination, coupled with the fact that the appellant was not represented effectively by the Counsel on any of the dates of hearing, this Bench has no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that the appellant has been substantively and effectively deprived of an effective defence and also has been denied of an effective legal assistance during trial.The aforesaid view of this Bench stands fortified from a series of decisions, even if not of a similar nature”.
The high court also emphasized the guidelines provided in Ashok by the apex court on the "role of the public prosecutors and appointment of legal aid lawyers".
On the question of whether the conviction should be set aside in its entirety and the accused be released or whether the matter be remanded for a denovo trial the high court observed, that the apex court's decision in Ashok was entirely different factual situation where it was found that the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was highly improbable and inadequate, coupled with the fact that the accused was not provided with any legal aid in his defence. Whereas in Mohd. Hussain, the court noted, the Supreme court was dealing with the specific issue on a denovo trial and found that it applies to the present case.
“In view of the fact that the larger Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Hussain alias Zulfikar Ali vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (larger Bench) dated 31.08.2012, being precisely on the question of law of whether the matter requires a remission or the conviction being set aside, we are also inclined to take the view that has been taken by the larger Bench for the reason of it being pin-pointedly decided on the said issue itself. For all the aforesaid reasons, we allow the appeal in part and set aside the judgment of conviction dated 15.05.2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal. We remand the matter back to the Trial Court for a fresh de novo trial,” the court directed.
Background
The father of the deceased daughter had filed a case against the appellant husband, alleging that he assaulted her and harassed her for dowry to the point where she had to be admitted to the hospital and was fighting to survive. The Police registered a case against the accused. Subsequently, the daughter passed away and the sections of law in the FIR were amended.
The trial was conducted and the appellant was found guilty of offences of murder cruelty and those under Dowry prohibition Act. Challenging the same, the present appeal was filed.
The counsel for the petitioner pointed out, that even though the appellant was assigned a legal aid counsel, the counsel was never present and the appellant himself asked a few questions to the witnesses during trial, and the trial was concluded.
Meanwhile state argued that perusal of the depositions and the case file would go to show that the appellant was in fact given assistance of a learned counsel and in addition the appellant himself has examined most of the witnesses. Thus, it cannot be said that the trial was not conducted fairly or for that matter the trial was conducted without providing sufficient opportunity of defence to the appellant.
Findings
After hearing the parties the court said, “Counsel representing the appellant inasmuch as he remained absent on all the dates and there was neither cross-examination from the appellant side nor suggestive question put to the witnesses and they were discharged. These suggestive questions on the plain reading itself would go to show that it seems to have been put by the Trial Court itself towards completion of the formality of cross-examination and it does not seem to have been voluntarily and deliberately made by the appellant".
Allowing the appeal in part and directing a de-novo trial the bench further directed the trial court to conclude it within 4 months and also directed the Public Prosecutor before the trial court to remove all unnecessary witnesses from the prosecution witnesses list. The appellant was given the liberty to engage a counsel of his choice or else the Trial Court should ensure that he is provided legal assistance through the legal-aid to represent him.
Maloth Ravi, S/o. Chandru vs. The State of Telangana.
Counsel for appellant: Y. Soma Srinath Reddy
Counsel for respondents: Shalini Saxena APP
