Summary
The Supreme Court set aside convictions and the death sentence for the rape and murder of an infant because the hurried trial denied a real opportunity to defend. Legal-aid counsel lacked adequate preparation time, scientific reports arrived during trial without a meaningful opportunity to challenge them, and the jailed accused received only one day to produce defence witnesses. A de novo trial with senior-counsel assistance was directed; the Court did not acquit on the merits.
Issues
- Whether the accelerated trial afforded meaningful legal assistance and an adequate defence opportunity.
- Whether the treatment of scientific reports and defence evidence satisfied fair-trial requirements.
Provisions considered
- Sections 293 and 294, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The High Court could not assume a real opportunity to challenge scientific reports when experts had not been examined and the trial timetable made their production by the jailed accused practically impossible. (¶¶ 8–10, 18–21)
Held
- Speed could not displace a substantive fair hearing. The trial court had to ensure adequate preparation time for appointed counsel, access to relevant material and effective consultation; lack of a specific adjournment request did not cure the deficiency. (¶ 7–17)
- Scientific reports were produced during trial without the later documents being put for admission or their authors examined. The accused had no real opportunity to test this important circumstantial evidence. (¶¶ 8–10, 18–21)
- Requiring an accused in custody to produce defence witnesses, including government experts, within one day and then closing the defence denied a practical opportunity to present the case. (¶¶ 8, 21)
- DNA material requires appropriate collection, preservation, documentation and evaluation; merely invoking the scientific character of the evidence did not resolve the procedural defects here. This did not establish a universal requirement that every report’s author testify. (¶ 18–21)
- The combined deficiencies vitiated the trial. Both courts’ conviction and sentence were set aside, with remand for a fresh trial and senior-counsel assistance through the trial court and District Legal Services Authority. (¶ 22–23)
Result
Conviction and sentence, including death, set aside; matter remitted for de novo trial with a proper defence opportunity. Trial court and District Legal Services Authority, Indore directed to provide senior-counsel assistance. Appeals disposed of without a merits acquittal.