Summary
Convictions and sentences, including death, were set aside where legal-aid counsel was appointed on the day charges were framed and the trial concluded within a fortnight. Nominal representation without time to study the case and consult the accused denied meaningful assistance. The Court directed fresh consideration with liberty to revisit charges, recall witnesses and respond to forensic evidence, and prescribed norms for serious-case legal aid.
Issues
- Whether the hurried proceedings provided real and meaningful legal assistance.
- What fresh consideration and safeguards were necessary.
- What norms should govern appointments of legal-aid counsel in serious cases.
Provisions considered
- Article 39A, Constitution of IndiaThe directive for equal justice and free legal aid informs the requirement of meaningful, rather than formal, assistance. (¶¶ 8, 9, 13)
Held
- Free legal assistance is part of fair procedure under Article 21. Courts must provide a real opportunity to prepare, including time to examine the material and consult the accused, rather than merely appoint counsel formally. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10, 13)
- The court should itself have adjourned after appointing counsel. Framing charges the same day denied a meaningful hearing; the accelerated evidence and late forensic reports further exposed gaps in fairness. Speed cannot displace the accused’s effective opportunity to defend. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
- Convictions and sentences were set aside for de novo consideration. Defence counsel could seek amended charges, recall for further cross-examination and expert evidence responding to the FSL and DNA reports; merits must be considered independently of these procedural observations. (¶¶ 20, 21)
- For cases potentially attracting life or death, appointed counsel must have at least ten years’ practice. In High Court death confirmations, Senior Advocates should first be considered. Reasonable preparation time, normally at least seven days, and meetings with the accused should be afforded. (¶ 22)
- The broader questions concerning Section 309 timelines and video-conferencing were deferred for later consideration, separate from disposal of the substantive appeals. (¶¶ 4, 5, 23, 24)
Result
Substantive appeals disposed of with convictions and sentences set aside and de novo consideration directed under the specified safeguards. No merits finding or acquittal was made. The matters were directed to be listed on 18 February 2020 for the deferred issues.