2023 INSC 936 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs. 489-490 OF 2019

NAVEEN @ AJAY …. APPELLANT

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ...RESPONDENT

J U D G M E N T

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.

These appeals would call in question, the impugned

Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 24.12.2018 passed

by the High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in

Criminal Reference No. 03 of 2018 and Criminal Appeal No.

3830 of 2018 upholding the conviction of the appellant under

Sections 363, 366-A, 376(A), 376(2)(i), 376(2)(j), 376(2)(k),

2

376(2)(m), 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code

1

, and Section

5(m), 5(i) read with Section 6 of Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act 2012

2

, and confirming the sentence of

death imposed on the appellant by the Fifth Additional Sessions

Judge, Indore (MP) in Sessions Trial No. 87 of 2018 arising out

of Crime No. 50 of 2018 dated 20.04.2 018, registered at P.S.

Sarafa, Indore, Madhya Pradesh.

2. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced for

committing rape and murder of 3 months old girl child. The

appellant was tried for the afore-mentioned offences on the

allegation that complainant-Sunil and his wife were engaged in

the business of selling balloons and they were residing at

Rajawada, Indore (MP). On 20.04.2018, complainant -Sunil

along with his family members were sleeping at a platform near

Rajawada, at about 03:00 a.m., his daughter (deceased) aged

about three months and four days started weeping on which

her mother Sonubai fed milk, thereafter, the deceased slept. At

about 05:00 a.m. when complainant -Sunil and his family

members woke up, they did not find the deceased at the pl ace

1

(for short, ‘IPC’)

2

(for short, ‘POCSO’)

3

where she was sleeping. Despite search, they could not find

her. Thereafter, Sunil lodged a missing report of his daughter

at Police Station, Sarafa, Indore registered as Crime No. 50 of

2018 (Ex.P-7). At about 13.27 hours, one Mr. Deepak Jain

(PW-5) informed the Police Station MG Road, Indore (MP) that

one dead body of a girl of about three months old has been

found at Shreenath Palace Society, Indore. M ERG intimation

was recorded under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973

3

. On coming to know about the discovery of a

dead body, Sunil went to the spot and identified the deceased

as his daughter. Postmortem of the dead body was conducted,

and the Report thereof was submitted by Dr. Poonam Mathur

(PW-20) vide Ex. P-53. After completing the investigation

including collection of evidence from CCTV footage, recovery of

incriminating articles, chemical analysis report etc., the charge-

sheet was filed on 27.04.2018. The DNA report was produced

later during the trial.

3. On the basis of evidence brought on record during the

course of trial, wherein the prosecution examined 29 witnesses

3

(for short, ‘Cr.P.C.)

4

and also proved 78 documents including expert

opinion/chemical report/FSL report, the Trial Court convicted

the appellant for the subject offences against which the

appellant preferred appeal before the High Court. The Sessions

Court also sent reference to the High Court under Section 396

Cr.P.C. for confirmation of death sentence. The High Court has

confirmed the death sentence and resultantly the Criminal

Appeal preferred by the appellant has also been dismissed by

the impugned Judgment.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. They have

advanced lengthy arguments and have taken us through the

entire evidence on record. However, considering the nature of

the order, we propose to pass, we are not referring to the

details of the evidence on record.

5. At the outset, learned senior counsel Mr. B.H. Marlappalle

assisted by Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocate-on-Record for the

appellant argued that the entire trial for such serious offences

has been completed within a span of 15 days i.e. from 27th

April, 2018 (when the charge-sheet was filed) to 12th May,

5

2018 (when the Judgment was delivered by the Sessions

Court). Referring to the order-sheet recorded by the trial court

from 27th April, 2018 to 12th May, 2018, learned senior

counsel would submit that the appellant has not been afforded

a fair trial depriving him of his valuable legal rights. It is also

argued that the DNA report (Ex.P-72) has not been proved in

accordance with law. The forensic experts were not examined

during the trial, nor the report was put to the accused for

admission or otherwise.

6. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent-State, while

supporting the impugned Judgment of the High Court, would

submit 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. He would submit

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.

6

7. To appreciate the arguments regarding denial of fair trial,

we have gone through the complete order -sheet recorded by

the trial court from 27th April, 2018 to 12th May, 2018. The

gist whereof is reproduced hereunder: -

27.04.2018

➢ Charge-sheet filed.

➢ Cognizance taken.

➢ Charge-sheet supplied to the accused. He requested for

appointment of an advocate through legal aid.

➢ Advocate from legal aid appointed on the same day.

➢ The case was posted on the same day, after some time,

for arguments on charge.

➢ Later on, the case was posted for next day for hearing

arguments on charge.

28.04.2018

➢ Arguments on charge heard, charges framed.

➢ Accused was asked as to whether he admits any

documents as required under Section 294 of Cr.P.C. to

which the accused refused to admit any document.

➢ District Public Prosecution Officer was directed to submit

trial program today itself.

➢ Prosecution submitted trial program for examining 34

witnesses.

01.05.2018

➢ PW Nos. 1 to 4 examined.

➢ The prosecution was directed to keep its remaining

witnesses present (summons not issued).

7

02.05.2018

➢ PW Nos. 5 to 10 examined.

➢ The prosecution was directed to keep its remaining

witnesses present (summons not issued).

03.05.2018

➢ PW Nos. 11 to 15 examined.

➢ Two witnesses discharged without examination.

➢ The prosecution was directed to keep its remaining

witnesses present (summons not issued).

04.05.2018

➢ PW Nos. 16 to 20 examined.

➢ FSL report received from State Forensic Science

Laboratory, Sagar, Viscera Report of deceased received

from the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory,

Jhumarghat, Rau, Indore and DNA report received from

the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Government of M.P.

produced by the prosecution.

➢ The prosecution was directed to keep its remaining

witnesses present through summons tomorrow.

05.05.2018

➢ PW Nos. 21 to 25 examined.

➢ No other witnesses were presented.

➢ Remaining Witnesses were directed to be called through

summons.

➢ Witness-Sunil was directed to be called from the District

Jail, Dhar through production warrant (this witness was

never examined).

➢ The case fixed for 07.05.2023 for remaining witnesses.

07.05.2018

➢ PW No. 26 examined.

➢ The prosecution was directed to keep its remaining

witnesses present tomorrow.

8

08.05.2018

➢ PW Nos. 27 to 29 examined.

➢ The prosecution closed its evidence.

➢ The case was posted for accused examination under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C. tomorrow.

09.05.2018

➢ The accused examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

➢ The accused requested to provide an opportunity to

produce defence witness on his behalf.

➢ He was directed to keep the defence witness present

tomorrow.

10.05.2018

➢ Defence witness was not present.

➢ Defence closed.

➢ Parties were directed for final arguments today itself (after

recess).

➢ Final arguments heard.

➢ The case was posted for Judgment on 12.05.2018.

12.05.2018

➢ Judgment pronounced.

➢ The accused and his advocate heard on the question of

sentence.

➢ The case posted after some time for hearing the accuse d

on sentence (order-sheet does not record that copy of the

Judgement supplied to the accused).

➢ After some time, sentence pronounced.

➢ Copy of the Judgment provided to the accused.

8. A close reading and scrutiny of the order-sheet recorded

by the Trial Court, as stated above in brief, would manifest that

the accused was not provided an opportunity to engage a

9

counsel of his choice and instead his submission was recorded

that he desires to be defended by a counsel appointed through

legal aid. From the very beginning, the trial proceeded on day-

to-day basis except on Saturday and Sunday and all the

witnesses examined by the prosecution were produced without

issuing summons. One witness-Sunil was directed to be

produced from District Jail, Dhar through production warrant.

However, this witness was never examined nor there is any

indication that this witness has been given up. It is this witness

(Sunil) who was named as a suspect in the FIR. Non -

examination of this witness has therefore left a crucial gap in

the prosecution case. It is significant to note that the FSL

report, Viscera report and DNA report were not submitted along

with the charge-sheet. The same were presented before the

Trial Court on 04.05.2018. The accused was never asked as to

whether he admits the documents, as required under Section

294 of Cr.P.C.. Neither any witnesses were called to prove

these reports. After the prosecution case was closed on

08.05.2018, the accused examination was conducted on the

very next day i.e. on 09.05.2018 and thereafter on the next

day i.e. on 10.05.2018, the case was fixed for examination of

10

defence witness. It requires special notice that the accused

was in jail and was not defended by a counsel of his choice but

by a legal aid counsel. He was not in a position to present the

witness himself, yet he was directed to keep his witnesses

present on the next day i.e. on 10.05.2018. On this date, he

could not produce his witnesses, therefore, his defence was

closed, and the case was posted for final ar guments after

recess.

9. In a case of this nature, the trial was conducted on day-

to-day basis and the order-sheet does not record that copies of

statement of witnesses were supplied to the accused or his

counsel, it is not known as to whether the defence counsel was

supplied all the requisite material basing which he could have

advanced his final arguments.

10. 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. It is

also to be noted that copies of DNA Report, FSL Report and

11

Viscera Report were presented before the Court during the

course of trial on 04.05.2018.

11. In the matter of Bashira vs. State of U.P .

4

, almost

similar situation, like in the present case arose, when the trial

was conducted in 13 days. Dealing with submissions made by

the accused counsel apropos lack of sufficient opportunity to

defend the accused, this Court held in paragraph 8 and 9 as

follows: -

“8. There is nothing on the record to show that,

after his appointment as counsel for the

appellant, Sri Shukla was given sufficient time

to prepare the defence. The order - sheet

maintained by the Judge seems to indicate

that, as soon as the counsel was appointed, the

charge was read out to the accused and, after

his plea had been recorded, examination of

witnesses began. The counsel, of course, did

his best to cross-examine the witnesses to the

extent it was possible for him to do in the very

short time available to him. It is true that the

record, also does not contain any note that the

counsel asked for more time to prepare the

defence, but that, in our opinion, is immaterial.

The Rule casts a duty on the court itself to

grant sufficient time to the counsel for this -

purpose and the record should show that the

Rule was complied with by granting him time

which the court considered sufficient in the

4

AIR 1968 SC 1313

12

circumstances of the case. In this case, the

record seems to show that the trial was

proceeded with immediately after appointing

the amicus curiae counsel and that, in fact, if

any time at all was granted, it was nominal. In

these circumstances, it must be held that there

was no compliance with the requirements of

this Rule.

9. In this connection, we may refer to t he

decisions of two of the High Courts where a

similar situation arose. In Re: Alla Nageswara

Rao, Petitioner(1) reference was made to Rule

228 of the Madras Criminal Rules of Practice

which. provided for engaging a pleader at the

cost of the State to defend an accused person

in a case where a sentence of death could be

passed. It was held by Subba Rao, Chief Justice

as he then was, speaking for the Bench, that:-

" a mere formal compliance with this

Rule will not carry out the object

underlying the rule. A sufficient time

should be given to the advocate

engaged on behalf of the accused to

prepare his case and conduct it on

behalf of his client. We are satisfied

that the time given was insufficient

and, in the circumstances, no real

opportunity was given to the accused to

defend himself."

This view was expressed on the basis of the

fact found that the advocate had been engaged

for the accused two hours prior to the trial. In

Mathai Thommen v. State the Kerala High

Court was dealing with a sessions trial in which

the counsel was engaged to defend the accused

on 02

nd

August, 1958, when the trial was

posted to begin on 04

th

August, 1958, showing

13

that barely more than a day was allowed to the

counsel to get prepared and obtain instructions

from the accused. Comm enting on the

procedure adopted by the Sessions Court, the

High Court finally expressed its opinion by

saying:

“Practices like this would reduce to a

farce the engagement of counsel under

Rule 21 of the Criminal Rules of Practice

which has been made for the purpose of

effectively carrying out the duty cast on

courts of law to see that no one is

deprived of life and liberty without a fair

and reasonable opportunity being

afforded to him to prove his innocence.

We consider that in cases like this

counsel should be engaged at least some

10 to 15 days before the trial and should

also be furnished with copies of the

records.”

In our opinion, no hard and fast rule can be laid

down as to the time which must elapse

between the appointment of the counsel and

the beginning of the trial; but, on the

circumstances of each case, the Court of

Session must ensure that the time granted to

the counsel is sufficient to prepare for the

defence. In the present case, when the counsel

was appointed just before the trial started, it is

clear that there was failure to comply with the

requirements of the rule of procedure in this

behalf.”

12. In Bashira (supra), this Court concluded that the

conviction of the appellant in a trial held in violation of Rule and

the award of death sentence will result in the deprivation of his

14

life in breach of the procedure established by law. Holding

further that, the conviction is void because of an error in the

procedure adopted at the trial, it was directed that the accused

shall be tried afresh, and the matter be remitted back to the

Sessions Court.

13. The issue concerning importance of a fair trial was

considered by this Court in Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh &

Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors.

5

(known as ‘Best Bakery

Case’) wherein this Court made the following observations in

paragraphs 38 to 40:-

“38. A criminal trial is a judicial examination of

the issues in the case and its purpose is to

arrive at a judgment on an issue as to a fact or

relevant facts which may lead to the discovery

of the fact issue and obtain proof of such facts

at which the prosecution and the accused have

arrived by their pleadings; the controlling

question being the guilt or innocence of the

accused. Since the object is to mete out justice

and to convict the guilty and protect the

innocent, the trial should be a search for the

truth and not a bout over technicalities and

must be conducted under such rules as will

protect the innocent, and punish the guilty. The

proof of charge which has to be beyond

5

(2004) 4 SCC 158

15

reasonable doubt must depend upon judicial

evaluation of the totality of the evidence, oral

and circumstantial, and not by an isolated

scrutiny.

39. Failure to accord fair hearing either to the

accused or the prosecution violates even

minimum standards of due process of law. 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. Since

the fair hearing requires an opportunity to

preserve the process, it may be vitiated and

violated by an overhasty, stage -managed,

tailored and partisan trial.

40. The fair trial for a criminal offence consists

not only in technical observance of the frame

and forms of law, but also in recognition and

just application of its principles in substance, to

find out the truth and prevent miscarriage of

justice.”

(Emphasis supplied)

14. In the case of Anokhilal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh ,

6

this Court, after referring to Best Bakery (supra) on the issue,

has held in paragraphs 21 to 23 as follows: -

“21. In the present case, the Amicus Curiae,

was appointed on 19.02.2013, and on the same

date, the counsel was called upon to defend the

accused at the stage of framing of charges.

One can say with certainty that the Amicus

Curiae did not have sufficient ti me to go

6

(2019) 20 SCC 196

16

through even the basic documents, nor the

advantage of any discussion or interaction with

the accused, and time to reflect over the

matter. Thus, even before the Amicus Curiae

could come to grips of the matter, the charges

were framed.

22. The provisions concerned viz. Sections 227

and 228 of the Code contemplate framing of

charge upon consideration of the record of the

case and the documents submitted herewith,

and after ‘hearing the submissions of the

accused and the prosecution in that behalf’. If

the hearing for the purposes of these provisions

is to be meaningful, and not just a routine

affair, the right under the said provisions stood

denied to the appellant.

23. In our considered view, the Trial Court on

its own, ought to have adjourned the matter for

some time so that the Amicus Curiae could

have had the advantage of sufficient time to

prepare the matter. The approach adopted by

the Trial Court, in our view, may have

expedited the conduct of trial, but did not

further the cause of justice. Not only were the

charges framed the same day as stated above,

but the trial itself was conducted within a

fortnight thereafter. In the process, the

assistance that the appellant was entitled to in

the form of legal aid, could not be real and

meaningful.”

This Court, in Anokhilal (supra), also set aside the

conviction and sentenced imposed by the Trial Court and the

High Court and directed for de novo trial. This Court also laid

down certain norms in matters where the accused is

17

represented by a counsel appointed through legal aid. The

norms, as stated in paragraph 31 of the said judgment are

reproduced hereunder: -

“31.1 In all cases there is a possibility of life

sentence or death sentence, learned Advocates who

have put in minimum of 10 years’ practice at the

Bar alone be considered to be appointed as Amicus

Curiae or through legal services to represent an

accused.

31.2 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.

31.3 Whenever any learned counsel is appointed

as Amicus Curiae, some reasonable time may be

provided to enable the counsel to prepare the

matter. There cannot be any hard and fast rule in

that behalf. However, a minimum of seven days’

time may normally be considered to be appropriate

and adequate.

31.4 Any learned counsel, who is appointed as

Amicus Curiae on behalf of the accused must

normally be granted to have meetings and

discussion with the concerned accused. Such

interactions may prove to be helpful as was noticed

in Imtiyaz Ramzan Khan .”

15. In Best Bakery (supra), this Court has observed that the

principle of fair trial now informs and energises many areas of

the law. It is reflected in numerous rules and practices. It is a

18

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 concep t of fair trial entails familiar

triangulation of interests of the accused, the victim, and the

society.

16. 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 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

19

judicial calm. 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. 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 be ing

meaningless & stage-managed. It is in violation of the principle

of judicial calm.

17. 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. In the halls of justice, the gavel strikes not in

20

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, thu s

upholding the sanctity of justice for all.

18. The issue concerning evidentiary value of DNA report has

been considered by this Court in a recent Judgment reported in

the case of Rahul v. State of Delhi, Ministry of Home

Affairs & Anr.

7

wherein the following has been held in

Paragraphs 36 and 38 as under: -

“36. The learned Amicus Curiae has also

assailed the forensic evidence i.e. the report

regarding the DNA profiling dated 18 -4-2012

(Ext. P-23/1) giving incriminating findings. She

vehemently submitted that apart from the fact

that the collection of the samples sent for

examination itself was very doubtful, the said

forensic evidence was neither scientifically nor

legally proved and could not have been used as

a circumstance against the appellant-accused.

The Court finds substance in the said

submissions made by the Amicus Curiae. The

7

(2023) 1 SCC 83

21

DNA evidence is in the nature of opinion

evidence as envisaged under Section 45 and

like any other opinion evidence, its probative

value varies from case to case.

38. It is true that PW 23 Dr B.K. Mohapatra,

Senior Scientific Officer (Biology) of CFSL, New

Delhi had stepped into the witness box and his

report regarding DNA profiling was exhibited as

Ext. PW 23/A, however mere exhibiting a

document, would not prove its contents. The

record shows that all the samples relating to

the accused and relating to the deceased were

seized by the investigating officer on 14-2-2012

and 16-2-2012; and they were sent to CFSL for

examination on 27-2-2012. During this period,

they remained in the malkhana of the police

station. Under the circumstances, the possibility

of tampering with the samples collected also

could not be ruled out. Neither the trial court

nor the High Court has examined the

underlying basis of the findings in the DNA

reports nor have they examined the fact

whether the techniques were reliably applied by

the expert. In the absence of such evidence on

record, all the reports with regard to the DNA

profiling become highly vulnerable, more

particularly when the collection and sealing of

the samples sent for examination were also not

free from suspicion.”

(Emphasis supplied)

19. In the case of Manoj & Ors. Vs. State of M.P.

8

, it was

held that if DNA evidence is not properly documented,

collected, packaged, and preserved, it will not meet the legal

8

(2023) 2 SCC 353

22

and scientific requirements for admissibility in a court of law.

Because extremely sma ll samples of DNA can be used as

evidence, greater attention to contamination issues is

necessary while locating, collecting, and preserving DNA

evidence as it can be contaminated when DNA from another

source gets mixed with DNA relevant to the case. This can

happen even when someone sneezes or coughs over the

evidence or touches his/her mouth, nose, or other part of the

face and then touches the area that may contain the DNA to be

tested. The exhibits having biological specimen, which can

establish link among victim(s), suspect(s), scene of crime for

solving the case should be identified, preserved, packed, and

sent for DNA Profiling.

20. In the case of Anil @ Anthony Arikswamy Joseph Vs.

State of Maharashtra

9

, the following has been held in

paragraph 18 as under:-

“18. Deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA, is a

molecule that encodes the genetic information

in all living organisms. DNA genotype can be

9

(2014) 4 SCC 69

23

obtained from any biological material such as

bone, blood, semen, s aliva, hair, skin, etc.

Now, for several years, DNA profile has also

shown a tremendous impact on forensic

investigation. Generally, when DNA profile of a

sample found at the scene of crime matches

with the DNA profile of the suspect, it can

generally be concluded that both the samples

have the same biological origin. DNA profile is

valid and reliable, but variance in a particular

result depends on the quality control and

quality procedure in the laboratory.”

(Emphasis supplied)

21. In the case at hand, the prosecution is based on

circumstantial evidence in which the prosecution has to prove

each link in the chain of circumstantial evidence and the

important chains in the link are DNA report, FSL report and

Viscera report. When the r eports were challenged by the

accused before the High Court, it was brushed aside by

observing that even if the authors of the reports were not

called for evidence, in terms of Section 293 Cr.P.C., the reports

are not open to question as the defence had an opportunity to

cross-examine the authors of the reports during the trial. In

our considered view, the High Court was not correct in saying

that the defence had an opportunity to cross -examine the

experts. The trial has been conducted on day -to-day basis

24

wherein the accused, who was in jail and defended by a

counsel from legal aid, was compelled by the Trial Court to

produce defence witness of his own in one day. It was

impossible for the accused himself to produce Dr. Anil Kumar

Singh and Dr. Kamlesh Kaitholiya, the authors of the Reports

(Ex.P-72), in one day because the said experts are government

servants and could not have attended the Court at the request

of an accused in jail. The Trial Court treated the accused as if

he is carrying a magic wand whi ch 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.

22. For all the afore-stated reasons, we are of the considered

view that the Trial Court conducted the trial in a hurried

manner without giving proper opportunity to the accused to

defend himself. Therefore, 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 trial court and the District

25

Legal Services Authority, Indore, are directed to provide

assistance of a senior counsel to the appellant to contest the

trial on his behalf.

23. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly.

….…….………………………………………J.

(B.R. GAVAI)

…..…………….………………………………J.

(PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA)

…....….………………………………………J.

(PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA)

NEW DELHI;

OCTOBER 19, 2023.