SC sets aside death sentence given in 3-year-old infant rape-murder case, trial conducted hurriedly without giving  ‘proper opportunity’ to defend

While hearing the Naveen @ Ajay vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh case on October 19, 2023, the Supreme Court (SC) set aside the conviction and death sentence of a man accused of kidnapping, raping, and murdering a 3-year-old infant. The same was done after the bench observed that the accused had not been given a ‘proper opportunity’ to defend himself. During the court proceedings, the learned senior counsel B.H. Marlappalle assisted by Mr. Rajat Mittal (Advocate-on-Record) appearing for the appellant argued that “the entire trial for such serious offences has been completed within a span of 15 days i.e. from 27th April 2018 (when the charge-sheet was filed) to 12th May 2018 (when the Judgment was delivered by the Sessions Court).” The matter was heard by a three-judge bench including Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, Justice BR Gavai, and Justice PS Narasimha. 

The SC bench notes that the accused was not defended by the counsel of his Choice by a legal aid counsel when he was in jail. Moreover, the SC pointed out various gaps in the prosecution case and noted that a single day time was given to the appellant to produce expert witnesses during the trial which was conducted on a day-to-day basis. The SC noted that “It was impossible for the accused himself to produce the authors of the DNA reports in one day because the experts are government servants and could not have attended the court at the request of an accused in jail. The trial court treated the accused as if he is carrying a magic wand which is available to produce highly qualified experts, who are government servants, on a phone call. There was no opportunity, in the real sense, to the appellant to cross-examine the experts.” 

During the proceedings, the top Court also highlighted the principle of fair trial and elaborated on the concept of ‘judicial calm’. It said, “In our view, in the hallowed halls of justice, the essence of a fair and impartial trial lies in the steadfast embrace of judicial calm. It is incumbent upon a judge to exude an aura of tranquillity, offering a sanctuary of reason and measured deliberation. In the halls of justice, the gavel strikes not in haste, but in a deliberate cadence ensuring every voice, every piece of evidence, is accorded its due weight. The expanse of judicial calm serves not only as a pillar of constitutional integrity but as the very bedrock upon which trust in a legal system is forged. It is a beacon that illuminates the path towards a verdict untainted by haste or prejudice, thus upholding the sanctity of justice for all.”

After hearing the contentions, the SC ordered, “We are of the considered view that the Trial Court conducted the trial in a hurried manner without giving proper opportunity to the accused to defend himself. Therefore, the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial court for de novo trial by affording proper opportunity to the appellant to defend himself. The trial court and the District Legal Services Authority, Indore, are directed to provide assistance of a senior counsel to the appellant to contest the trial on his behalf.”