‘Lawyers In Criminal Courts Absolute Necessity, Not Luxury’: Delhi High Court Acquits Man Who Faced Trial Without Any Legal Aid

Calling it a classic case where canons of justice were kept aside by trial court as the accused wasn't provided any effective legal aid, the Delhi High Court has acquitted a man in a case of preparation for committing dacoity.

"Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court’s judicial conscience does not permit to now remand back the matter and direct the learned Trial Court to again conduct a fresh trial. In view thereof, the accused is acquitted of all the charges since the trial in itself was vitiated due to non-assistance of accused by legal aid counsel, besides existence of several inconsistencies and lacunae in the case of prosecution before the learned Trial Court," said the court.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in the ruling observed that the judiciary has a crucial role to play in ensuring enforcement of human rights and has to meet the “great challenge” towards making justice accessible in practical terms to the poor.

"It is important to understand the reality of disadvantage of an individual and ensure proactive steps to prevent injustice by providing effective legal aid in order to deliver equality in justice. The constitutional guarantees of free and fair trial should remain meaningful to the poor of the country and the judiciary has to remain vigilant to protect the interest of the disadvantaged groups also," said the court.

Justice Sharma further said that courts are the guardians of a person’s liberty and are duty bound by the Constitution of India as well as their oath to ensure fair trial to an accused which is the constitutional goal.

“Vast sums of money are disbursed to establish legal aid centres, and State Legal Services Authorities to help those who fail to hire the best lawyers due to their poverty. Lawyers are empanelled and paid to prosecute and defend those who are unable to hire lawyers to defend themselves. Needless to say, lawyers in criminal Courts are absolute necessity and not luxury,” the court said.

The bench further observed that the right to fair trial is a fundamental right which would fail if a poor man charged with an offence is unable to defend himself without lawyer to assist him.

"It is to be remembered that in India, the absence of fair and proper trial is not only violation of fundamental principles of judicial procedure and constitutional mandate, but also violation of mandatory provisions of Section 304 Cr.P.C. The assistance of a legal counsel, in a meaningful way, was absent throughout the trial," said the court.

It made the observations, while acquitting Sunil who was convicted under sections 399 (making preparation to commit dacoity) and 402 (punishment for belonging to gang of dacoits) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 25 of Arms Act, 1959 in March 2009.

The FIR was registered in 2007 and four persons including the petitioner were chargesheeted. It was alleged by the prosecution that a buttondar knife, one raxine bag, 2.5 metres long rope and a black coloured cloth was recovered from the appelant Sunil.

Justice Sharma said the testimony of all the witnesses including of the Investigating Officer was “completely silent” on the recovery of raxine bag, masks and plastic rope from the possession of the petitioner, as alleged in the FIR.

The court also noted that it was only on September 3, 2008 when the accused persons requested that they were unable to engage a lawyer, that an Amicus Curiae was appointed by the court at State’s expenses. However, it observed that except at the time of recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and hearing arguments on sentence, the Amicus Curiae remained absent.

This Court notes with regret that even at the stage of final arguments, he was not present to defend the appellant who he had been asked to defend at the State’s expense, said the bench.

"On 04.12.2008, when it is recorded that the accused persons, who had earlier expressed their desire to lead defence evidence, stated before the learned Court that they did not want to lead defence evidence, the learned Amicus Curiae was not present. It is, thus, a case where the accused remained unrepresented and unaided during the entire effective stages of trial," said the court.

Observing that the trial in the case was conducted in a most casual manner, Justice Sharma said the trial court did not deem it appropriate to appoint any counsel to defend the accused. The court said there is no doubt that the right of cross-examination to any accused in a criminal case to discredit the witnesses and to test veracity of the statement is the most vital part of a criminal trial.

“The accused, therefore, did not have legal aid of a counsel in real sense, at any stage of trial. Needless to say, the accused was entitled to such legal aid during the entire period of trial. As already mentioned above, the appointment of the Amicus Curiae was at a much later stage after the entire evidence had been recorded and even thereafter, learned Amicus Curiae appeared only twice,” the court said.

It further said that order sheets were written in an indifferent manner by the trial court and at most places, the name of the counsel is not mentioned.

“The accused has faced trial for the last 15 long years. At times, though the agony of a person undergoing trial is not mentioned on the paper while a Judge writes a judgement, the trial which has been prolonged beyond 15 years is an agony itself. The stress of facing a criminal trial is punishment unannounced in a case, as the present one,” the court said.

The court directed that a copy of its judgement be circulated by Registrar General to all the District Courts in Delhi and be also sent to the Director (Academics), Delhi Judicial Academy "for doing the needful."

Title: SUNIL v. STATE

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 15 

Click Here To Read Here