New Delhi: The Supreme Court Thursday said set aside the conviction and death sentence of a man accused of kidnapping, raping, and murdering a three-month-old infant, saying the trial was hurriedly completed in 15 days and in the hallowed halls of justice, the essence of a fair and impartial trial lies in the steadfast embrace of judicial calm.
The apex court said in the halls of justice, the gavel strikes not in haste, but in a deliberate cadence ensuring every voice, every piece of evidence, is accorded its due weight, and denial of a fair trial is as much injustice to the accused as is to the victim and the society.
The deceased infant had gone missing on April 20, 2018. Her body was found at Shreenath Palace Society in Madhya Pradesh's Indore. The trial court handed down the death sentence to the accused Naveen, which was confirmed by the high court in December 2018. Naveen moved the apex court against the high court order.
A bench comprising justices B R Gavai, P S Narasimha, and Prashant Kumar Mishra noted that the order sheet would thus clearly indicate that the trial was conducted in a hurried manner without providing ample and proper opportunity to the defence counsel, who was engaged through legal aid, to prepare himself effectively.
Justice Mishra, who authored the judgment on behalf of the bench, citing the Best Bakery case, said this court has observed that the principle of fair trial now informs and energizes many areas of the law. He said it is a constant, ongoing development process continually adapting to new and changing circumstances, and exigencies of the situation – peculiar at times and related to the nature of crime, persons involved – directly or operating behind social impact and societal needs and even so many powerful balancing factors which may come in the way of administration of criminal justice system. “The concept of fair trial entails familiar triangulation of interests of the accused, the victim, and the society”, said the bench.
The bench said it was further observed that there can be no analytical, all-comprehensive or exhaustive definition of the concept of a fair trial, and it may have to be determined in a seemingly infinite variety of actual situations with the ultimate object in mind viz. whether something that was done or said either before or at the trial deprived the quality of fairness to a degree where a miscarriage of justice has resulted.
“Each one has an inbuilt right to be dealt with fairly in a criminal trial. Denial of a fair trial is as much injustice to the accused as is to the victim and the society. Fair trial obviously would mean a trial before an impartial judge, a fair prosecutor, and the atmosphere of judicial calm”, said justice Mishra.
The bench said fair trial means a trial in which bias or prejudice for or against the accused, the witnesses, or the cause which is being tried is eliminated. It is inherent in the concept of due process of law, that condemnation should be rendered only after the trial in which the hearing is a real one, not sham or a mere farce and pretence, said the bench.
The bench stressed that since fair hearing requires an opportunity to preserve the process, it may be vitiated and violated by an overhasty, stage-managed, tailored and partisan trial. “It is thus settled that a hasty trial in which proper and sufficient opportunity has not been provided to the accused to defend himself/herself would vitiate the trial as being meaningless & stage-managed. It is in violation of the principle of judicial calm”, said the bench.
The bench stressed that the principle of “judicial calm” in the context of a fair trial needs to be elaborated for its observance in letter and spirit. “In our view, in the hallowed halls of justice, the essence of a fair and impartial trial lies in the steadfast embrace of judicial calm. It is incumbent upon a judge to exude an aura of tranquillity, offering a sanctuary of reason and measured deliberation”, said the bench.
Also read: Chhattisgarh liquor scam: SC questions ED over 'hurry' in filing plea for NBW against accused
Justice Mishra said in the halls of justice, the gavel strikes not in haste, but in a deliberate cadence ensuring every voice, every piece of evidence, is accorded its due weight. “The expanse of judicial calm serves not only as a pillar of constitutional integrity, but as the very bedrock upon which trust in a legal system is forged. It is a beacon that illuminates the path towards a verdict untainted by haste or prejudice, thus upholding the sanctity of justice for all”, he said.
Senior counsel B.H. Marlappalle assisted by Rajat Mittal, advocate-on-record for the appellant Naveen argued that the entire trial for such serious offences was completed within a span of 15 days, from 27 April 2018 (when the charge sheet was filed) to 12 May 2018 (when the Judgment was delivered by the Sessions Court). Senior counsel would submit that the appellant has not been afforded a fair trial depriving him of his valuable legal rights.
It was also argued that the DNA report has not been proved in accordance with law, and the forensic experts were not examined during the trial, nor the report was put to the accused for admission or otherwise.
Madhya Pradesh government counsel, supporting the high court judgment, submitted that the appellant having not raised any objection regarding hasty completion of trial or denial of a fair trial, it is not open for the appellant to argue, at this stage, that the trial has not been conducted properly and fairly. The counsel argued that in view of clinching evidence against the appellant which are scientific in nature, the sessions court and the high court as well, have not committed any illegality in convicting and sentencing the appellant.
The apex court said the trial court, which conducted trial on a daily basis, did not give accused an opportunity to engage a counsel of his choice and instead his submission was recorded that he desired to be defended by a counsel appointed through legal aid.
The apex court noted that the accused was in jail and was not defended by a counsel of his choice but by a legal aid counsel. “The Trial Court treated the accused as if he was carrying a magic wand which is available to produce highly qualified experts, who are government servants, on a phone call. There was no opportunity, in the real sense, to the appellant to cross-examine the experts”, said the bench.
Reiterating that trial court conducted the trial in a hurried manner, the bench said: “the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial court for de novo trial by affording proper opportunity to the appellant to defend himself”.
The bench directed the trial court and the District Legal Services Authority, Indore, to provide assistance of a senior counsel to the appellant to contest the trial on his behalf.
