‘Lawyers in criminal courts are absolute necessity, not luxury’: Delhi HC acquits man 15 years after he faced trial without lawyer

The high court observed that this was a classic case where “all cannons of justice were kept aside” while the trial court passed its judgment as the accused was not provided legal aid which he was entitled to get under the Constitution as well as under Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Directing a fresh trial to be held as there were several issues with the prosecution’s case, the court said, “The accused has faced trial for 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 judgment, the trial which has been prolonged beyond 15 years is an agony in itself. The stress of facing a criminal trial is punishment unannounced in a case, as the present one”.

“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 the non-assistance of the accused by legal aid counsel, besides the existence of several inconsistencies and lacunae in the case of prosecution before the learned trial court,” it added.

The court was hearing the case of a man, Sunil, who was booked under Section 399 (making preparation to commit dacoity) and 402 (punishment for belonging to a gang of dacoits) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act, who was convicted and sentenced by the trial court in March 2009. The FIR was registered in 2007 and four people, including the petitioner, were chargesheeted. It was alleged by the prosecution that a knife, one bag, a rope, and a black coloured cloth were recovered from Sunil.

The high court, however, observed that the testimonies of the witnesses as well as the investigating officer were silent about the recoveries made from Sunil. It also noted that it was only on September 3, 2008, when the accused requested that they were unable to engage a lawyer that an Amicus Curiae was appointed by the court at the state’s expense.

However, it observed that except at the time of recording of statement and hearing arguments on sentence, the Amicus Curiae remained absent throughout the trial. It was found that the accused was not “cross-examined”, which the court said had resulted in a “gross miscarriage of justice” and that it had to guard against such an eventuality.

“The assistance of a legal counsel, in a meaningful way, was absent throughout the trial. Judiciary has a crucial role to play in ensuring the enforcement of human rights and has to meet the great challenge towards making justice accessible in practical terms to the poor in the country. It is important to understand the reality of the disadvantages 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 a 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”.

The high court observed that the trial court should have realised its duty to provide effective legal aid to an accused “who is poor and marginalised and could not defend himself” and went on to observe that courts are the “guardians of a person’s liberty and are duty bound by Constitution 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 an absolute necessity and not a luxury,” the HC held allowing the plea.