Denial of a fair trial: SC sets aside sentence of capital punishment, says, a person accused of committing gravest and most heinous crimes is entitled to basic protection under the law.

Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) of India was hearing appeals that arose out of the 2018 Allahabad High Court (HC) judgment that confirmed the conviction and sentence of capital punishment imposed on the appellant under Section 302 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellant was accused of killing his wife and 12-year-old daughter. The SC bench of Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, and Justice Sanjay Karol set aside the death sentence of a man after noting that he was denied a fair trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. It overturned the Allahabad HC’s order and allowed the man’s (appellant’s) appeal. While hearing the matter, the top court noted various lapses in the trial that resulted in the denial of a fair trial. It noted that the appellant’s counsel was changed frequently and no appropriate time was given to prepare for the case. The bench said that the mere appointment of legal aid counsel is not sufficient, the representation must be effective. While stating so, the top court considered the views of various judges in multiple judgments. One such was in the Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of U.P. case where the bench discussed the quality of legal aid and 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.” 

In context to the present case, the SC bench opined, “This frequent change in counsel as also the matter being reserved for judgment on the very day that a new counsel for the accused is brought on record, leads us to question the assistance given to the appellant by such lawyers. Was his case effectively argued? Were all the possible gaps in the prosecution case sufficiently explored and exploited to his advantage? Were the prosecution witnesses ably cross-examined leading to the creation of a reasonable doubt, wherever possible? All these questions arise in our mind, considering the situation of the defence counsel. To us, the imposition of the death penalty here appears fraught with danger and should not be sustained. We are supported in holding such an apprehension by the fact that this Court has recognized that sufficient time should be given to counsel to prepare the case and conduct the same on behalf of his client. Although, it is true that there can be no formulae for what may be considered sufficient, the same has to be determined in the facts and circumstances of the case…As has already been noticed, there was a change of counsel recorded in the daily status of the Trial Court, arguments were closed on the very same day and the matter was reserved for judgment. What is the efficiency of the newly appointed counsel’s assistance to the appellant? This question stares in the face of the conclusion of capital punishment arrived at by the Court, more so when there was a frequent change of counsel during trial, losing out the continuity of thought process.”

Moreover, the SC bench also referred to the international law obligations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, and the International Criminal Court, created by the Rome Statute. Further, the top court highlighted, “What rights of an accused being codified in the Rome Statute signifies is that even when it comes to the gravest and most heinous crimes committed against humanity as a whole, a person accused of having so committed such offences is also entitled to basic protection under the law. In our facts, ending someone's life is, in fact, one of the gravest crimes that a person may commit, and so even here the accused is entitled to the protection of law ensuring that the process that condemns him as 'convicted of an offence', is free of procedural irregularities and blemishes which may call into question the credibility of the conclusion arrived at by such a process.” After hearing the matter, the SC ordered, “The judgments of the Trial Court convicting the appellant of the charged offence and awarding capital punishment and confirmation thereof by the High Court...cannot be sustained and, as such, is set aside. The Appeals are accordingly allowed. The matters are remanded to the Trial Court and restored on the respective docket. The Trial Court shall proceed afresh from the stage of framing of charge. Trial is expedited. It shall proceed, to the extent possible on a day-to-day basis. Parties shall appear before the Trial Court on 18th March 2025 and fully cooperate during trial. It is requested that the matter be heard and judgment delivered within a period of one year.”