As the demand for speedy trial in rape cases is becoming louder by the day, the Supreme Court has cautioned that in the pursuit for expeditious disposal of criminal matters, the "cause of justice must never be allowed to suffer or be sacrificed" and the fast-tracking of process must never ever result in "burying the cause of justice".
A Bench of Justices U U Lalit, Indu Malhotra and Krishna Murari has set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on a convict and ordered a fresh trial in the case where the convict was awarded death penalty. The judgement of the trial court was upheld by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
"Expeditious disposal is undoubtedly required in criminal matters and that would naturally be part of the guarantee of a fair trial. However, the attempts to expedite the process should not be at the expense of the basic elements of fairness and the opportunity to the accused, on which postulates, the entire criminal administration of justice is founded," the Bench observed in a judgement passed on December 18.
It added, "In the pursuit of expeditious disposal, the cause of justice must never be allowed to suffer or be sacrificed. What is paramount is the cause of justice and keeping the basic ingredients which secure that as a core idea and ideal, the process may be expedited, but fast-tracking of the process must never ever result in burying the cause of justice."
The top court's order came on an appeal filed by the convict Anokhilal challenging the conviction and death sentence imposed for charges of kidnapping a minor nine-year-old girl, rape and murder on January 30, 2013. He was arrested on February 4, 2013.
The top court took into note that the trial court had finished examining 13 prosecution witnesses in the case within 7 days, by February 26, 2013. Thereafter, on five dates hearings were held and judgment was passed on March 4, 2013.
More From This Section
The Bench in its judgement noted that the submissions made by senior advocate Siddharth Luthra who appeared for the convict highlighted various flaws in the conduct of the trial, like the advocate appointed by the legal services authority to represent him in the trial court, was given little time to prepare for the case or properly defend him.
After going through the submissions of Luthra, the apex court emphasised the right of hearing and the right to legal aid that is given to an accused cannot just be a routine affair and in this case, those rights stood denied to the accused, it said.
"The approach adopted by the Trial Court, in our view, may have expedited the conduct of the trial but did not further the cause of justice. Not only were the charges framed the same day..., but the trial itself was concluded within a fortnight thereafter. In the process, the assistance that the appellant (convict) was entitled to in the form of legal aid, could not be real and meaningful."
The Bench further said that all it can say by way of caution is that in matters where death sentence could be one of the alternative punishments, the "courts must be completely vigilant and see that full opportunity at every stage is afforded to the accused".
The court also issued certain guidelines relating to the appointment of Amicus Curiae [advocates assisting the courts] in cases where it is likely that life imprisonment or death may be granted as a penalty.
.t said in all cases where there is a possibility of a life sentence or death sentence, advocates who have put in a minimum of 10 years practice at the Bar alone be considered to be appointed as Amicus Curiae
In all matters dealt with by the High Court concerning confirmation of death sentence, senior advocates of the court must first be considered to be appointed as Amicus Curiae, the top court further said.
It added that whenever any counsel is appointed as Amicus Curiae, some reasonable time may be provided to enable the counsel to prepare the matter and there cannot be any hard and fast rule, however, a minimum of seven days' time may normally be considered to be appropriate and adequate.
Amicus Curiae must normally be allowed to have meetings and discussions with the concerned accused, the court said.