Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed two unrelated petitions challenging murder convictions and life sentences, finding no reason to interfere with the respective High Court decisions. It also directed Legal Services Authorities and Committees in every State to facilitate video-conference dialogue between counsel and jailed accused or persons familiar with their cases, to make legal aid effective.
Issues
- Whether the two murder-conviction challenges warranted interference.
- What facility should legal services bodies provide to facilitate counsel’s communication in criminal cases involving jailed accused.
Held
- In the first case the relied-on eyewitnesses were found trustworthy; in the second the High Court had rejected the sudden-fight defence on detailed analysis. Neither decision called for interference. (¶¶ 2, 3)
- Meaningful legal aid requires an opportunity for counsel to obtain instructions from the accused or someone familiar with the case. All State Legal Services Authorities and Committees were directed to extend video-conference facilities in every criminal case where the accused was in jail, connecting counsel with the accused or a person in the know of the matter. (¶¶ 4, 5)
Result
Both special leave petitions dismissed. Nationwide directions issued to State legal services bodies to provide the specified video-conference facility in criminal cases involving jailed accused.