In Crim. Appeal Nos.64-65 of 2022-SC-Accused put on criminal trial should be effectively represented by Defence Counsel: Apex Court reminds District and Sessions Judges conducting trials relating to serious offences to appoint experienced Lawyers 
Justices Uday Umesh Lalit,S. Ravindra Bhat & J.B. Pardiwala [13-10-2022]

Read Judgment: Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, October 17, 2022: While allowing an appeal of an accused in a murder case as well as noting the fact that perfunctory investigation was conducted and the defence Counsel provided to the accused remained oblivious of ceratin legal aspects, the Supreme Court has opined that the presence of counsel on record means effective, genuine and faithful presence and not a mere farcical, sham or a virtual presence that is illusory, if not fraudulent.

“This case provides us an opportunity to remind the learned District and Sessions Judges across the country conducting sessions trials, more particularly relating to serious offences involving severe sentences, to appoint experienced lawyers who had conducted such cases in the past. It is desirable that in such cases senior advocate practising in the trial court shall be requested to conduct the case himself or herself on behalf of the undefended accused or at least provide good guidance to the advocate who is appointed as amicus curiae or an advocate from the legal aid panel to defend the case of the accused persons. Then only the effective and meaningful legal aid would be said to have been provided to the accused”, the Larger Bench of Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice J.B. Pardiwala asserted.

Factual background of this case was such that the accused appellant-Ramanand was married to Sangeeta (deceased) for the past 12 years before the incident in question. In the wedlock, five children were born. On the fateful night of the incident while the wife and four children were sleeping in the house situated at the village Basdhiya, the accused appellant was said to have mercilessly clobbered all the five to death with a sharp cutting weapon.

The son aged 10 years at the time of incident was residing at a different village with one police constable. The motive behind the crime as put forward by the prosecution was the extra marital affair of the accused appellant with one married lady-Manju. In such circumstances, it was the case of the prosecution that the accused appellant decided to terminate not only his wife Sangeeta but also his four minor daughters.

Thereafter, the charge sheet came to be filed for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and the Sessions Trial case came to be registered.At the conclusion of the trial, the Trial Judge convicted the accused appellant and sentenced him to death.  The appeal filed by the accused appellant in the High Court also failed. Being dissatisfied, the accused appellant had filed the present appeals.

According to the Bench, none of the pieces of evidence relied on as incriminating by the courts below, could be treated as incriminating pieces of circumstantial evidence against the accused. Realities or truth apart, the fundamental and basic presumption in the administration of criminal law and justice delivery system is the innocence of the alleged accused and till the charges are proved beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of clear, cogent, credible or unimpeachable evidence, the question of indicting or punishing an accused does not arise, merely carried away by heinous nature of the crime or the gruesome manner in which it was found to have been committed, the Bench added.

It was noted by the Bench that the evidence of the investigating officer was not only unreliable but the same did not constitute legal evidence. As per the Bench, in the absence of exact words, attributed to an accused person, as statement made by him being deposed by the investigating officer in his evidence, and also without proving the contents of the chargesheet, the trial court as well as the High Court were not justified in placing reliance upon the circumstance of discovery of weapon.

Considering the legal infirmities of the case, it was concluded that the evidence of discovery of the weapon and the blood stained clothes at the instance of the accused appellant could hardly be treated as legal evidence. The Bench also ruled out the circumstances relating to the making of an extra judicial confession and the discovery of the weapon of offence as not having been established.

Though noticing that the offence is gruesome and revolts the human conscience, the Bench observed that an accused can be convicted only on legal evidence and if only a chain of circumstantial evidence has been so forged as to rule out the possibility of any other reasonable hypothesis excepting the guilt of the accused.

Referring to its judgment in Ashish Batham v. State of M.P., (2002) 7 SCC 31, the Top stated that time and again it has been held that between may be true and must be true there is a long distance to travel which must be covered by clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence by the prosecution before an accused is condemned a convict. 

Also, keeping in view the fact that the cross-examination of each and every witness was below average and the defence counsel remained oblivious of the position of law that suggestions made to the witnesses by the defence the answers to those were binding to the accused, the Bench affirmed, “Any defence counsel with a reasonable standing at the Bar is expected to know that cross-examination is not the only method of discrediting a witness. If the oral testimony of certain witnesses is contrary to the proved facts and if their testimony is on the face of it unacceptable, their evidence might well be discarded on that ground alone.”

Thus, the Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction of the accused appellant under Section 302 of the IPC.