No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.254 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-56 Year-2014 Thana- PAROO District- Muzaffarpur
======================================================
1.Shambhu Nath Singh @ Shambhu Singh son of Raj Keshi Singh
2.Ravindra Kumar @ Ravindra Singh son of Shambhu Singh
3.Dhirendra Kumar @ Dhirendra Singh son of Sri Shambhu Singh
All residents of village-Fatehabad, Police Station-Paroo in the district of
Muzaffarpur.
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s: Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Adv.
For the Respondent/s: Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH)
Date : 20-01-2022
In the instant appeal, the appellants have challenged the
judgment of conviction dated 30.01.2016 and order of sentence
dated 02.02.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-IX, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No. 787 of 2014 arising
out of Paroo P.S. Case No. 56 of 2014 by which they have been
convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34,
307, 326, 325, 324 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life till death
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.254 of 2016 dt.20-01-2022
2/40
and a fine of Rs. 1 lac for the conviction under Section 302/34
of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for ten
years and a fine of Rs. 50,000/- for the conviction under Section
307 of the India Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to
further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.
However, no separate sentence has been awarded for the
conviction under Sections 326, 325, 324 and 323 of the Indian
Penal Code.
2.The prosecution case, in short, as disclosed in the
fardbeyan of Abhinav Kumari @ Gunja Kumari (P.W.11),
daughter of Late Baliram Singh, resident of village-Fatehabad,
Police Station-Paroo in the district of Muzaffarpur recorded by
P.N. Singh (not examined), Sub-Inspector of Police of Ahiyapur
Police Station on 14.03.2014 at 10:30 AM at SKMCH,
Muzaffarpur is that her deceased father had gone to the field to
harvest mustard plant situated at a distance of half kilometer
towards South. She herself and her elder sister Amrita Kumari
(deceased) along with her younger sister Pushpanjali Kumari
had gone to the field carrying breakfast for their deceased father.
At about 10.30 AM, her co-sharers, namely, Shambhu Singh,
Ravindra Kumar, Dhirendra Kumar and Sudha Devi reached to
the field being armed with weapons in their hands. They stopped
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.254 of 2016 dt.20-01-2022
3/40
her father from harvesting mustard plant upon which an
altercation took place, whereafter the appellant no. 2 Ravindra
Kumar assaulted her father with farsa with an intention to kill
him and appellant no. 1 Shambhu Singh assaulted him with iron
rod. Thereafter, appellant no. 3 Dhirendra Kumar, who was
armed with pistol assaulted her father with the butt of the pistol,
as a result of which, he became seriously injured. When she and
her two sisters tried to save their father, the appellants brutally
assaulted her elder sister Amrita Kumari causing fracture of her
hand. They also assaulted her younger sister Micky Kumari, as a
result of which, she died in the field itself. Thereafter, the
appellants proceeded towards her house saying that her mother
(P.W.8) should also be finished. They came to her house and
mercilessly assaulted her mother with an intention to kill her.
On hulla, several persons arrived there and her father was taken
to hospital at Paroo. After initial treatment, the doctor referred
him to SKMCH. While being taken to SKMCH, her father
Baliram Singh died on the way. She herself, her younger sister
and her mother are being treated at SKMCH in injured
condition.
3.On the basis of the aforesaid oral statement of the
informant (P.W.11), the First Information Report (for short the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.254 of 2016 dt.20-01-2022
4/40
‘FIR’) was drawn up and Paroo P.S. Case No. 56 of 2014 was
registered on 14.03.2014 at 01:00 PM.
4.On completion of investigation, the police submitted a
report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(for short the ‘Cr.P.C.’) vide charge-sheet no. 37 of 2014 dated
28.05.2014.
5.The FIR named accused Shambhu Singh (appellant no.
1), Ravindra Kumar (appellant no. 2) and Dhirendra Kumar
(appellant no. 3) were sent up for trial for the offences
punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 325, 326, 302
and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
6.On receipt of the charge-sheet, cognizance was taken by
the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate vide order dated
18.09.2014 and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions
on 25.09.2014.
7.The learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur transferred the
case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-IX, Muzaffarpur,
who explained the charges to the appellants on 20.11.2014
under Sections 323, 324, 341, 325, 326, 307, 302 and 504/34 of
the Indian Penal Code.
8.Since the appellants did not plead guilty and claimed to
be tried, the trial commenced.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.254 of 2016 dt.20-01-2022
5/40
9.In order to establish the charges, the prosecution
examined altogether fifteen witnesses between 11.12.2014 and
28.08.2015.
10.After the closure of the prosecution case, the appellants
were examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. on 02.09.2015
and the case was fixed for evidence on behalf of the defence.
Subsequently, on the same day, an application was filed on
behalf of the appellants for granting time to file an application
under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recall of the prosecution witnesses
in order to cross-examine them. In the order dated 02.09.2015,
however, it is written as application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
Again on 08.09.2015 application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was
filed on behalf of the defence. The said petition was taken up by
the Trial Court on 08.09.2015. On that day, an adjournment was
sought for on behalf of the prosecution to file a reply to the
application preferred on behalf of the appellants under Section
311 Cr.P.C, which was allowed by the court and the hearing of
the application was adjourned to 16.09.2015.
11.After hearing the parties on the application dated
08.09.2015 under Section 311 Cr.P.C., the case was adjourned to
17.09.2015 for orders. On 17.09.2015, the said application was
rejected and the case was fixed for arguments on 22.09.2015.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.254 of 2016 dt.20-01-2022
6/40
12.Subsequently, the impugned judgment of conviction dated
30.01.2016 and order of sentence dated 02.02.2016 was passed.
13.Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order
of sentence, Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the
appellants submitted that the primary object of a criminal justice
system is to ensure a fair trial of the accused. According to him,
every trial begins with the presumption of innocence in favour
of the accused and the provisions of the Cr.P.C. are so framed
that a criminal trial should be governed by this essential
presumption. He contended that the manner in which the trial
was conducted, it is clear that there was no fairness at any stage
and the interest of the appellants was put to prejudice on several
counts. The order-sheet of the Trial Court would make it evident
that at the time of framing of charge, the accused persons were
brought from the jail and in presence of the Prosecutor, the
appellants were heard and the charges were framed. At that
stage, the appellants were not being represented by any counsel.
He contended that the order-sheet would further reveal that
during the entire trial, the appellants were not being represented
by any counsel and the Trial Court did not assign any legal aid
for their defence. He urged that though the order-sheet would
reveal that P.Ws. 4, 5, 6 and 8 were cross-examined by the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.254 of 2016 dt.20-01-2022
7/40
appellants, neither from the testimonies of the witnesses nor
from the order-sheet, it would be evident that out of the three
appellants, who actually cross-examined those witnesses.
14.Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for the appellants submitted
that it was the duty of the Trial Court to inform the accused
persons that if they were unable to engage the services of
lawyer, they are entitled to obtain legal aid through the District
Legal Services Authority. According to him, the conviction of
the appellants without informing them that they are entitled to
free legal assistance is clearly in violation of the fundamental
right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
He urged that since the appellants were not represented by any
lawyer and they were not informed that they are entitled to
obtain free legal service, their conviction is vitiated and is liable
to be set aside.
15.In support of his submissions, Mr. Thakur, learned
counsel for the appellants relied upon the judgments of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot v.
State of Maharashtra since reported in [AIR 1978 SC 1548],
Suk Das and Another v. Union Territory of Arunachal
Pradesh since reported in [AIR 1986 SC 991], Mohd. Hussain
Alias Zulfikar Ali v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.254 of 2016 dt.20-01-2022
8/40
since reported in [(2012) 2 SCC 584] (for the sake of
convenience hereinafter referred to as “Mohd. Hussain I”),
Mohd. Hussain Alias Zulfikar Ali v. State (Government of
NCT of Delhi) since reported in [(2012) 9 SCC 408] (for the
sake of convenience hereinafter referred to as “Mohd. Hussain
II”) and Anokhilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh since reported
in [AIR 2020 SC 232].
16.On the other hand, Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that the
right of the accused to appear in person before the court has not
been infringed in the present case. They were present before the
court through out the trial. At all stages, the Trial Court provided
them adequate opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. They
themselves cross-examined PWs. 4, 5, 6 and 8 and expressed
their unwillingness to cross-examine the other witnesses. She
contended that from the record itself, it would also appear that
an advocate was appointed by the appellants before the Court of
learned Magistrate, but he did not turn up in the court on the
dates on which the witnesses were examined. She, however,
fairly conceded that in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court on which reliance has been placed by the
appellants, the Trial Court ought to have provided legal
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.254 of 2016 dt.20-01-2022
9/40
assistance of a counsel to the accused-appellants.
17.Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State contended that at this belated stage
remanding the matter back to the Trial Court for de novo trial
would not be in the interest of justice, as it is not known as to
whether all the witnesses examined during trial are alive or
dead. She submitted that even if they are alive, it would be
extremely difficult to procure their attendance after eight years
of the incident.
18.We have heard learned counsel for the parties primarily
on the issue pertaining to the legality of the present trial. Thus,
for the present, we are confined with the issue as to whether the
approach adopted by the learned Trial Court in the present
matter could be accepted or whether the trial stood vitiated
because the appellants were not provided with the legal aid
counsel even as they were unable to cross-examine the
witnesses themselves.
19.In order to appreciate the rival submissions and the issues
involved in the instant case, it would be appropriate to
reproduce the translated English version of the relevant orders
of the Trial Court, which were mostly recorded in Hindi as
under:-
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.254 of 2016 dt.20-01-2022
10/40
Date Order
11.12.2014The three accused persons are produced
from the jail custody. On behalf of the
prosecution, P.W. 1 Shatrughan Singh has
filed his attendance. On call, his
examination-in-chief has been conducted.
No advocate has entered into appearance on
behalf of the accused persons and the
accused persons do not want to cross-
examine him themselves. Hence, the
witness is discharged.
Put up on 18.12.2014 for evidence.
18.12.2014The accused persons are produced from the
jail custody. P.W. 2 Ajit Kumar Singh has
filed his attendance. His examination-in-
chief was conducted.
No advocate appeared on behalf of the
accused persons to cross-examine the
witness. The accused persons informed that
he was not available and they refused to
cross-examine themselves. The witness is
discharged.
Put up on 05.01.2015 for evidence.
05.01.2015The accused persons are produced from the
jail custody. On behalf of the prosecution,
P.W. 3 Jitendra Kumar has filed his
attendance. His examination-in-chief has
been conducted.
No advocate appeared on behalf of the
defence to cross-examine the witness. The
accused persons stated that they have
nothing to ask and that their lawyer would
cross-examine him. Hence, the witness is
discharged.
Put up on 16.01.2015 for evidence.
16.01.2015The accused persons are produced from the
jail custody. On behalf of the prosecution,
P.W. 4 Awani Kumar has filed his
attendance. His examination-in-chief has
been conducted.
The accused himself cross-examined the
witness. The witness is discharged.
Put up on 23.01.2015 for evidence.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.254 of 2016 dt.20-01-2022
11/40
23.01.2015The accused persons are produced from the
jail custody. On behalf of the prosecution,
P.W. 5 Shiv Nath Thakur has filed his
attendance. His examination-in-chief was
conducted.
After cross-examination by the accused
persons, the witness is discharged.
Put up on 02.02.2015 for evidence.
02.02.2015The accused persons are produced from the
jail custody. On behalf of the prosecution,
P.W. 6 Hari Bhushan Singh has filed his
attendance. His examination-in-chief was
conducted.
No advocate appeared on behalf of the
defence to cross-examine him and the
accused persons stated that they do not have
to ask any question. The witness is
discharged.
Put up on 11.02.2015 for evidence.
11.02.2015The accused persons are produced from the
jail custody. On behalf of the prosecution,
P.W. 7 Bijay Singh has filed his attendance.
His examination-in-chief has been
conducted. He has been cross-examined by
the accused and discharged.
Put up on 21.02.2015 for evidence.
21.02.2015The accused persons are produced from the
jail custody. On behalf of the prosecution,
P.W. 8 Saraswati Devi has filed her
attendance. She has been fully examined
and cross-examined. The witness is
discharged.
Put up on 02.03.2015 for evidence.
02.03.2015The accused persons are produced from the
jail custody. On behalf of the prosecution,
P.W. 9 Pushpanjali Kumari and P.W.10
Harendra Prasad Singh have filed their
attendance. On call, PWs-9 and 10 have
been examined.
No advocate appeared to cross-examine
them. The witnesses are discharged.
Put up on 11.03.2015 for evidence.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.254 of 2016 dt.20-01-2022
12/40
11.03.2015All the three accused persons are produced
from the jail custody. APP filed hajri of P.W.
11 Abhinav Kumari. P.W.11 examined.
During the examination, signature of
Jitendra Kumar on application is marked as
Exhibit-1. Witness discharged. O/c to issue
summon upon rest non-examined C.S.
witness and issue the same upon I.O. and
doctor.
Put up on 18.03.2015 for evidence.
18.03.2015All the three accused persons are produced
from the jail custody. P.W. 12 Dhananjay
Kumar Singh filed his attendance along
with the list of documents. P.W. 12 has been
examined. On identification of the witness,
the discharge ticket of Micky Kumari was
marked as Exhibit-2. The discharge ticket of
Gunjan Kumari from SKMCH is marked as
Exhibit-2/1. The discharge ticket of
Sarawsati Devi is marked as Exhibit-2/2.
The C.T. scan report of Micky Kumari
dated 10.04.2012 is marked as Exhibit-2/3.
The C.T. scan report of Micky Kumari
dated 17.12.2014 is marked as Exhibit-2/4
and the C.T. scan report of Micky Kumari
dated 14.08.2014 is marked as Exhibit 2/5.
Nobody appeared to cross-examine the
witness on behalf of the defence. The
witness is discharged.
Put up on 31.03.2015 for evidence.
31.03.2015All the three accused persons are produced
from the jail custody. The compliance report
of the summons issued is unavailable. No
witness is in attendance. Put up on
07.04.2015 for evidence.
07.04.2015All the three accused persons are produced
from the jail custody. On behalf of the
prosecution, P.W.13 Sujit Kumar has filed
his attendance. P.W. 13 has proved the
pagination done on the fardbeyan, which
has been marked as Exhibit-3. The writing
of Parmanand Singh on the fardbeyan has
been marked as Exhibit-3/a. The signature
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.254 of 2016 dt.20-01-2022
13/40
of Parmanand Singh on the fardbeyan has
been marked as Exhibit-3/b. The formal FIR
has been marked as Exhibit-4. The
signatures of the witnesses on the formal
FIR have been marked as Exhibit-4a and
Exhibit-4b.
An application has been filed by the learned
APP that the inquest report is not available
on record and the Investigating Officer
would produce the inquest report on the
next date. Hence, the further examination-
in-chief may be deferred.
Heard.
On account of the application of the learned
APP, the further examination-in-chief of the
witness is deferred.
Put up on 08.04.2015 for further
examination-in-chief of P.W.13.
08.04.2015All the three accused persons are produced
from the jail custody. The APP filed hajri of
P.W.13 Sujit Kumar and submitted the
inquest report. The further examination-in-
chief has been conducted. P.W.3 proved
inquest report, which has been marked as
Exhibit-5. He also proved the writing and
signature of Parmanand Singh on the
inquest report, which is marked as Exhibit-
5/a.
Nobody appeared on behalf of the defence
to cross-examine the witness. The accused
persons stated that they have nothing to ask
from the witness. Hence, the witness is
discharged.
Put up on 16.04.2015 for evidence.
16.04.2015The Presiding Officer is on leave.
All the accused persons are produced from
the jail custody.
Put up on 18.04.2015.
18.04.2015The Presiding Officer is on leave.
All the accused persons are produced from
the jail custody.
Put up on 22.04.2015.
22.04.2015The Presiding Officer is on leave.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.254 of 2016 dt.20-01-2022
14/40
All the accused persons are produced from
the jail custody.
Put up on 07.05.2015.
07.05.2015All the accused persons are produced from
the jail custody.
Hajiri of P.W.14 Dr. Vijay Kumar Prasad
has been filed. The witness has been
examined. During examination-in-chief, he
proved the postmortem report of Baliram
Singh, which has been marked as Exhibit-6
and the postmortem report of Amrita
Kumari, which has been marked as Exhibit-
7.
Nobody appeared to cross-examine the
witness. Hence, the witness is discharged.
On behalf of the prosecution, the
application dated 18.04.2015 was pressed.
Heard.
The application is accepted.
The office is directed to issue letter to
SKMCH in the light of the application.
Put up on 19.05.2015 for evidence.
19.05.2015All the three accused persons are produced
from the jail custody. Wait for reply.
Put up on 29.05.2015 for evidence.
29.05.2015All the three accused persons are produced
from the jail custody. Wait for reply.
Put up on 09.06.2015 for evidence.
09.06.15All the three accused persons are produced
from the jail custody. O/c to issue reminder
for report.
Put up on 20.06.2015 for evidence.
19.06.2015A letter bearing no. 1522 dated 17.06.2015
from the Superintendent of Sri Krishna
Medical College & Hospital containing the
attested injury report of Micky Kumari,
Gunjan Kumari and Saraswati Devi has
been received.
Put up on record.
20.06.2015All the three accused persons are produced
from the jail custody.
Seen the injury report available on record.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.254 of 2016 dt.20-01-2022
15/40
They are photocopies and are not legible.
Hence, office is directed to call the original
register.
Put up on 09.07.2015.
09.07.2015All the three accused persons are produced
from the jail custody.
Wait for reply to the letter no. 1142 dated
25.06.2015.
Put up on 20.07.2015.
20.07.2015All the three accused persons are produced
from the jail custody. Put up on 31.07.2015
for evidence.
23.07.2015The injury report register of SKMCH has
been received along with the letter no. 1834
dated 22.07.2015.
Put up on record and produced it on the
fixed date.
31.07.2015All the three accused persons produced
from the jail custody.
Office is directed to issue summons to Dr.
Ramesh Chandra Singh.
Put up on 07.08.2015 for evidence.
07.08.2015All the three accused persons produced
from the jail custody.
Office is directed to comply with the order
dated 31.07.2015.
Put up on 18.08.2015 for evidence.
18.08.2015All the three accused persons produced
from the jail custody.
Office is directed to immediately comply
with the earlier order.
Put up on 28.08.2015 for evidence.
28.08.2015All the three accused persons produced
from the jail custody.
On behalf of the prosecution, attendance of
P.W. 15 Dr. Ramesh Chandra Singh has
been filed. His examination-in-chief was
conducted. During his examination-in-chief,
he proved the injury reports, which have
been marked as Exhibits-8, 8/a, 8/b. The
defence declined to cross-examine him. The
witness is discharged. At the request of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.254 of 2016 dt.20-01-2022
16/40
prosecution, the prosecution evidence is
closed.
Put up on 02.09.2015 for recording the
statements of the accused persons under
Section 313 Cr.P.C.
02.09.2015All the three accused, namely, Dhirendra
Kumar, Shambhu Nath Singh and Ravindra
Kumar from the jail custody. Their
statements have been recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C.
Put up on 08.09.2015 for defence evidence.
Later, on 02.09.2015, an application
has been filed on behalf of the accused
persons under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C.
Put up on record.
08.09.2015All the three accused persons produced
from the jail custody. The defence has filed
an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
The prosecution has sought for an
adjournment in order to file reply, which is
accepted. A request has been made on
behalf of the prosecution to return the injury
register of SKMCH received on 23.07.2015.
From perusal of the record, it is evident that
the injury report has been marked as exhibit
and there is no requirement of the injury
register in the case. Hence, the office is
directed to send back the injury register to
SKMCH.
Put up on 16.09.2015 for reply.
16.09.2015All the three accused persons produced
from the jail custody.
A reply has been filed on behalf of the
prosecution to the application filed on
behalf of the defence dated 08.09.2015.
Both the parties have been heard on the
application dated 08.09.2015.
Put up on 17.09.2015 for order.
17.09.2015An application under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
was filed on behalf of the defence on
08.09.2015.
A reply to the said application was filed on
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.254 of 2016 dt.20-01-2022
17/40
behalf of the prosecution on 16.09.2015 and
the case was fixed for orders.
Both the parties have been heard.
All the three accused persons produced
from the jail custody.
The defence has filed the application stating
therein that the three accused persons,
namely, Shambhu Nath Singh, Ravindra
Singh and Dhirendra Kumar are being tried
and after the framing of charge, 14
witnesses have been examined and they
have been discharged. The case has become
defenceless because of non-appointment of
advocate to cross-examine the prosecution
witnesses. There is none in the family of the
accused persons to do pairvi and no panel
lawyer has been provided to them. If no
opportunity is given to cross-examine the
witnesses, it will prejudice the right of the
defence and it will also be gross irregularity.
Hence, the application has been filed in
order to recall the prosecution witnesses for
their cross-examination.
An objection petition has been filed on
behalf of the prosecution to the application
preferred on behalf of the defence wherein
it has stated that the application of the
defence is not maintainable. Altogether 15
witnesses have already been examined. Out
of whom, PWs. 4, 5, 7 and 8 were cross-
examined by the accused persons and
deliberately the remaining witnesses were
not cross-examined. The accused persons
had appointed an advocate, who has filed
Vakalatnama but deliberately he did not
appear to cross-examine the witnesses. The
accused persons never expressed their
desire that they should be provided with a
panel lawyer for their defence. The accused
persons had appointed Umesh Prasad Singh
as their advocate, who had also filed his
Vakalatnama. The instant application has
neither been filed by the accused persons
nor the advocate appointed by them. Hence,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.254 of 2016 dt.20-01-2022
18/40
it cannot be taken into consideration. A
Similar application was filed on 02.09.2015,
which also deserves to be rejected. Hence,
the application dated 08.09.2015 filed on
behalf of the defence under Section 311
Cr.P.C. be also rejected.
Both the parties have been heard.
Perused the records.
From perusal of the record, it appears
that in the instant case, charges were framed
against the accused persons under Sections
326/34, 307/34, 302/34, 504/34, 323, 324,
341 and 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code on
20.11.2014.
A perusal of the records makes it
evident that in the instant case, P.W.1 was
examined on 11.12.2014, P.W. 2 was
examined on 18.12.2014, P.W. 3 was
examined on 05.01.2015, P.W. 4 was
examined on 16.01.2015, P.W. 5 was
examined on 23.01.2015, P.W. 6 was
examined on 02.02.2015, P.W. 7 was
examined on 11.02.2015, P.W. 8 was
examined on 21.02.2015, P.Ws. 9 and 10
were examined on 02.03.2015, P.W. 11 was
examined on 11.03.2015, P.W. 12 was
examined on 18.03.2015, P.W. 13 was
examined on 07.04.2015 and 08.04.2015
P.W. 14 was examined on 07.05.2015 and
P.W. 15 was examined on 28.08.2015.
Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was
closed on 28.08.2015 and the case was
adjourned to 02.09.2015 for recording the
statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. On
02.09.2015, the statements of the accused
persons were recorded under Section 313
Cr.P.C. After recording of the statements, an
application was filed on behalf of the
defence that the witnesses have not been
cross-examined, hence, time may be granted
to file an application under Section 311 of
the Cr.P.C.
The case was fixed on 08.09.2015
from before for evidence on behalf of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.254 of 2016 dt.20-01-2022
19/40
defence. After the order dated 02.09.2015
was recorded, the application was filed on
behalf of the defence on 02.09.2015 itself.
Later on, an application was filed on
08.09.2015 on behalf of the defence to
recall the prosecution witnesses for cross-
examination under Section 311 Cr.P.C.
P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 were not cross-examined
by the accused persons. On enquiry about
the advocate appointed by the accused
persons by the court, the accused persons
stated that their lawyer was not available
and he will cross-examine the witness when
he will come. They stated that we do not
have to ask any question. They also stated
that after return from Delhi their advocate
would cross-examine the witness. P.Ws. 4
and 5 were cross-examined by the accused.
Nobody cross-examined Hari Bhushan
Singh P.W.-6 and the accused persons stated
that they do not have to ask any question
from him. P.W. 7 Bijay Singh was cross-
examined at length by the accused persons.
P.W. 8 was also cross-examined at length.
With regard to P.W. 9 the accused persons
refused to cross-examine him. Their
advocate did not turn up to cross-examine
him. P.W. 10 was also cross-examined by
the accused persons. With regard to P.W. 11,
the accused persons stated that they have
cross-examined some witnesses but they did
not intend to cross-examine him. With
regard to P.Ws. 12 13 and 14 also they
stated that they do not intend to cross-
examine them. The accused persons did not
request for providing a lawyer from the
Panel. Some of the witnesses were
examined while some of them were not. The
application filed on 02.09.2015 and
08.09.2015 bear signature of a lawyer, who
has not filed any Vakalatnama.
This case is coming on evidence
since December 2014. On the one hand the
defence says that there is none to do pairvi
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.254 of 2016 dt.20-01-2022
20/40
on their behalf but after closure of
prosecution evidence all of a sudden they
got all the persons to do pairvi and got
advocate, this has been done with a pre-
planned and in a pre-meditated manner.
Some how or other, the accused persons
want recall of witnesses and in case the
witnesses fail to appear particularly the
official witnesses then their evidence will
have no value. The prosecution relied on the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of A.G. v. Shivkumar Yadav and
Other, a judgment delivered on 10
th
September, 2015.
Perused the said judgment. In
paragraph-11 thereof it is clearly mentioned
that in course of trial not only the accused
but the aggrieved party and society be also
given adequate opportunity. And in sub
paragraph-5 and 6 of paragraph-29 it has
been observed that it should be seen that the
victim is not harassed and there will be no
benefit only because the accused is in
defence.
In these circumstances, keeping in
view the case-law and the facts and
circumstances of this case, the application
dated 08.09.2015 filed by the defence is
rejected.
22.09.2015 is fixed for arguments.
22.09.2015 to 14.01.2016- Matter
adjourned for various reasons.
18.01.2016All the three accused persons are produced
from the jail custody. An application is filed
on behalf of the defence. The accused
persons are in attendance along with their
advocates Shri Umesh Prasad Singh and
Shri Vijay Kumar Das. When asked to
argue, the accused persons stated that they
are not able to comprehend what to argue in
the matter. Their advocates are also not
ready to argue the case. Hence, the accused
persons are directed either to argue the case
themselves or through their lawyers on
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.254 of 2016 dt.20-01-2022
21/40
19.01.2016 (wrongly recorded in the order
as 19.01.2015) at 11:30 AM, failing which
the case will be fixed for judgment.
On 19.01.2016, when the accused persons were brought
from the jail custody for argument, their advocates did not
appear. They stated that they will not argue the case. The
learned Trial Court adjourn the matter to 20.01.2016 giving the
last opportunity to the defence to argue the case.
On 20.01.2016 when the accused persons were brought
from the jail custody before the court, their advocates did not
turn up. The Trial Court has recorded in its order that the
accused persons stated that they will not get the case argued
and it may be fixed for judgment. Hence, the case was fixed on
30.01.2016 for judgment.
30.01.2016The accused Dhirendra Kumar, Shambhu
Nath Singh and Ravindra Kumar are
produced from the jail custody. No advocate
has entered into appearance on their behalf.
The accused persons stated that they will
not get the case argued and the judgment
may be passed. Under such circumstances,
the case is adjourned to 30.01.2016 for
judgment. The accused persons are
remanded back to the jail custody.
Ultimately, on 30.01.2016, vide impugned judgment
dated 30.01.2016 and order of sentence dated 02.02.2016
passed by the Trial Court, the appellants were convicted and
sentenced.
20.From the aforesaid orders passed by the learned Trial
Court, it would be evident that during the examination of P.Ws.
1 to 15, no advocate defended the case of the appellants.
Further, no cross-examination was done by the accused persons
of the P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15. It would
further appear from the order-sheet that the P.Ws. 4, 5, 7 and 8
were cross-examined by the accused themselves. It has rightly
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.254 of 2016 dt.20-01-2022
22/40
been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that
out of the three accused persons, it is not clear who cross-
examined P.Ws. 4, 5, 6 and 8. On perusal of the testimony of the
P.Ws. 4, 5, 7 and 8, we find that a few formal questions were
asked from them which are not of any relevance. We further find
from the record that the appellants were arrested on the date of
occurrence itself. Through out the trial, they were in jail and
were being produced before the court from jail. On few dates,
one of the appellants, may have tried to cross-examine some of
the witnesses, but due to lack of knowledge, the said cross-
examination was of no use. Right from the inception of the trial,
the Trial Court failed to ensure a fair trial to the accused
persons.
21.It is well settled that a trial primarily aimed at
ascertaining truth has to be fair to all concerned, which includes
the accused, the victims and society at large. Each person has a
right to be dealt with fairly in a criminal trial. The denial of a
fair trial amounts to injustice not only to the accused but also to
the victim and the society. An accused has a right to fair trial.
Under our constitution as also the international treaties and
conventions, the right to get a fair trial is considered as a basic
human right. The denial of fair trial is like crucifixion of human
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.254 of 2016 dt.20-01-2022
23/40
rights.
22.The word ‘Trial’ is not defined anywhere in the Cr.P.C. A
criminal trial is a judicial examination of the facts in the case
process in the discovering truth to decide the facts in issue to
arrive at a just decision of the question being the guilt or the
innocence of the accused.
23.In Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Another v. State of
Gujarat and Others since reported in [(2006) 3 SCC 374], the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed:
“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 it is to the victim
and to society. Fair trial obviously would mean a
trial before an impartial judge, a fair prosecutor
and an atmosphere judicial calm. A fair trial
means a trial in which bias or prejudice for or
against the accused, the witness or the cause
which is being tried, is eliminated.”
24.Thus, the basic principle of the right to a fair trial is that
the proceeding in any criminal case are to be conducted by a
competent, independent and impartial court. In a criminal trial,
as the State is the prosecuting party and the police are also an
agency of the State, it is all the more important that the judiciary
is free from all suspicion of extraneous influence and control
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.254 of 2016 dt.20-01-2022
24/40
direct or indirect. The whole burden of fair and impartial trial,
thus, rests on the shoulders of the judiciary.
25.In a criminal trial, the burden of proving the guilt of the
accused is upon the prosecution, as the trial begins with the
presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. The
requirement of fair trial is that the accused person is given
adequate opportunity to defend himself. But, this opportunity
will have no meaning if the accused person is not provided with
the legal assistance during trial, if he is unable to engage a
lawyer of his own choice. It is the duty of the State to provide a
counsel to the accused in certain cases and a fundamental right
of the accused to have free legal assistance at the cost of the
State, if he is unable to engage a lawyer to defend his case. The
failure to provide such assistance vitiates trial. The Court cannot
turn a blind eye to the fact that the accused is not being
defended by any counsel and proceed with the trial without
ensuring the right of the accused to be defended by a lawyer.
26.In Khatri and Others (IV) v. State of Bihar and Others
since reported in [(1981) 2 SCC 493], the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that the accused is entitled to free legal service not
only at the stage of trial but also when first produced before the
Magistrate and also when remanded.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.254 of 2016 dt.20-01-2022
25/40
27.Once, there was no lawyer to represent the appellants,
who were in custody at the relevant time, it was the duty of the
Trial Court to provide legal assistance to them.
28.The Trial Court ought to have kept in mind that Section
303 of the Cr.P.C. gives right to any person, accused of an
offence before a criminal court to be defended by a pleader of
his choice and Section 304 of the Cr.P.C. of the Cr.P.C.
contemplates legal aid to the accused facing charge in a case
triable by the Court of Sessions at State expense.
29.Section 304 of the Cr.P.C. reads as follows:-
“304. Legal aid to accused at State expense in
certain cases.
(1) Where, in a trial before the Court of Session,
the accused is not represented by a pleader, and
where it appears to the Court that the accused has
not sufficient means to engage a pleader, the Court
shall assign a pleader for his defence at the
expense of the State.
(2) The High Court may, with the previous
approval of the State Government, make rules
providing for-
(a) the mode of selecting pleaders for defence
under sub- section (1);
(b) the facilities to be allowed to such pleaders by
the Courts;
(c) the fees payable to such pleaders by the
Government, and generally, for carrying out the
purposes of sub- section (1).
(3) The State Government may, by notification,
direct that, as from such date as may be specified
in the notification, the provisions of sub- sections
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.254 of 2016 dt.20-01-2022
26/40
(1) and (2) shall apply in relation to any class of
trials before other Courts in the State as they apply
in relation to trials before Courts of Session.”
30.In Suk Das and Another v. Union Territory of
Arunachal Pradesh since reported in [AIR 1986 SC 991], even
before the enactment of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987
the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an accused need not ask
for legal assistance, the Court dealing with the case is obliged to
inform him or her of the entitlement to free legal aid. In para-5
of the said judgment, it was held:-
“ that the right to free legal service is… clearly an
essential ingredient of ‘reasonable, fair and just’
procedure for a person accused of an offence and it
must be held to be implicit in the guarantee of
Article 21. This is a constitutional right of every
accused person who is unable to engage a lawyer
and secure legal services on account of reasons
such as poverty, indigence or incommunicado
situation and the State is under a mandate to
provide a lawyer to an accused person if the
circumstances of the case and the needs of justice
so require, provided of course the accused person
does not object to the provision of such lawyer.”
This Court pointed out that it is an essential
ingredient of reasonable, fair and just procedure to
a prisoner who is to seek his liberation through the
court's process that he should have legal service
available to him. The same view was taken by a
Bench of this Court earlier in M.H. Hoskot v. State
of Maharashtra [(1978) 3 SCC 544 : 1978 SCC
(Cri) 468] . It may therefore now be taken as
settled law that free legal assistance at State cost is
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.254 of 2016 dt.20-01-2022
27/40
a fundamental right of a person accused of an
offence which may involve jeopardy to his life or
personal liberty and this fundamental right is
implicit in the requirement of reasonable, fair and
just procedure prescribed by Article 21. Of course,
it must be recognised that there may be cases
involving offences, such as economic offences or
offences against law prohibiting prostitution or
child abuse and the like, where social justice may
require that free legal service may not be provided
by the State. There can in the circumstances be no
doubt that the appellant was entitled to free legal
assistance at State cost when he was placed in
peril of his personal liberty by reason of being
accused of an offence which if proved would
clearly entail imprisonment for a term of two
years.
31.In Mohd. Hussain I (supra) while allowing the appeal
and reversing the conviction of the appellant on the basis that
the trial was vitiated by unfairness a two Judge Bench of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held:-
“The trial court did not think it proper to appoint
any counsel to defend the appellant-accused, when
the counsel engaged by him did not appear at the
commencement of the trial nor at the time of
recording of the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses. The accused did not have the aid of the
counsel in any real sense, although, he was as
much entitled to such aid during the period of trial.
The record indicates, as I have already noticed,
that the appointment of the learned counsel and
her appearance during the last stages of the trial
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.254 of 2016 dt.20-01-2022
28/40
was rather pro forma than active. It cannot
seriously be doubted at this late date that the right
of cross-examination is included in the right of an
accused in a criminal case, to confront the
witnesses against him not only on facts but also to
discredit the witness by showing that his
testimony-in-chief was untrue and unbiased...”
(emphasis supplied)
32.In para-50 of the aforesaid judgment while emphasizing
that entitlement of free legal aid is not dependent on making an
application to that effect the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:-
“ In a trial before the Court of Session if the
accused is not represented by a pleader and has
not sufficient means, the court shall assign a
pleader for his defence at the expense of the State.
The entitlement to free legal aid is not dependent
on the accused making an application to that
effect, in fact, the court is obliged to inform the
accused of his right to obtain free legal aid and
provide him with the same…” (emphasis supplied)
33. In para-51 of the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court while highlighting the right of an accused in
view of the Constitutional Mandate and International Covenants
and Human Rights Declarations held:-
“The right of an accused to be defended by a legal
practitioner, flowing from Article 22(1) of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.254 of 2016 dt.20-01-2022
29/40
Constitution has further been fortified by the
introduction of the directive principles of State
policy embodied in Article 39-A of the Constitution
by the Forty-second Amendment Act of 1976 and
enactment of sub-section (1) of Section 304 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure. Legal assistance to a
poor person facing trial whose life and personal
liberty is in jeopardy is mandated not only by the
Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure
but also by international covenants and human
rights declarations. If an accused too poor to
afford a lawyer is to go through the trial without
legal assistance, such a trial cannot be regarded as
reasonable, fair and just. The right to be heard in
criminal trial would be inconsequential and of no
avail if within itself it does not include the right to
be heard through counsel.”
34. In para-52 of the aforesaid judgment highlighting the
importance of a guiding hand of the counsel at every step, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held:-
“One cannot lose sight of the fact that even
intelligent and educated men, not trained in law,
have more than often no skill in the science of law
if charged with crime. Such an accused not only
lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to
prepare his defence but many a time loses his
equilibrium in face of the charge. A guiding hand
of the counsel at every step in the proceeding is
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.254 of 2016 dt.20-01-2022
30/40
needed for fair trial. If it is true of men of
intelligence, how much true is it for the ignorant
and the illiterate or those of lower intellect! An
accused without the lawyer faces the danger of
conviction because he does not know how to
establish his innocence.”
35.In Mohd. Hussain I (supra) both the Hon’ble Judges of
the Supreme Court were of the view that the conviction and
sentence of the appellant deserved to be set aside, as he was not
given the assistance of a lawyer to defend himself during trial.
However, one of the Hon’ble Judge (H.L. Dattu, J.) while
allowing the appeal and setting aside the conviction and
sentence imposed by the Trial Court and the judgment of the
High Court remanded the case to the Trial Court for fresh
disposal in accordance with law but the second Hon’ble Judge
(C.K. Prasad, J.) was not persuaded to remand the matter to the
Trial Court for fresh trial of the appellant, who was a Pakistani
citizen at a belated stage and directed that he be deported his
country in accordance with law and till then he should remain in
jail custody.
36.In view of the aforesaid difference of opinion between the
two Hon’ble Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the matter
was referred to a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court to decide in the appeal as to whether the matter requires to
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.254 of 2016 dt.20-01-2022
31/40
be remanded for de novo trial in accordance with law.
37.The three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Mohd. Hussain II (supra) while answering the reference held
as under:-
“42. Insofar as the present case is concerned, it
has been concurrently held by the two Judges
[Mohd. Hussain v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi),
(2012) 2 SCC 584 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 919] who
heard the criminal appeal that the appellant was
denied due process of law and the trial held
against him was contrary to the procedure
prescribed under the provisions of the Code since
he was denied right of representation by counsel in
the trial. The Judges differed on the course to be
followed after holding that the trial against the
appellant was flawed.”
“43. We have to consider now, whether the matter
requires to be remanded for a de novo trial in the
facts and the circumstances of the present case.
The incident is of 1997. It occurred in a public
transport bus when that bus was carrying
passengers and stopped at a bus-stand. The
moment the bus stopped an explosion took place
inside the bus that ultimately resulted in death of
four persons and injury to twenty-four persons. The
nature of the incident and the circumstances in
which it occurred speak volume about the very
grave nature of offence. As a matter of fact, the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.254 of 2016 dt.20-01-2022
32/40
appellant has been charged for the offences under
Sections 302/307 IPC and Section 3 and, in the
alternative, Section 4(b) of the ES Act. It is true
that the appellant has been in jail since 9-3-1998
and it is more than 14 years since he was arrested
and he has passed through mental agony of death
sentence and the retrial at this distance of time
shall prolong the culmination of the criminal case
but the question is whether these factors are
sufficient for the appellant's acquittal and
dismissal of indictment. We think not.
“44. It cannot be ignored that the offences with
which the appellant has been charged are of very
serious nature and if the prosecution succeeds and
the appellant is convicted under Section 302 IPC
on retrial, the sentence could be death or life
imprisonment. Section 302 IPC authorises the
court to punish the offender of murder with death
or life imprisonment. Gravity of the offences and
the criminality with which the appellant is
charged are important factors that need to be kept
in mind, though it is a fact that in the first instance
the accused has been denied due process. While
having due consideration to the appellant's right,
the nature of the offence and its gravity, the impact
of crime on the society, more particularly the
crime that has shaken the public and resulted in
death of four persons in a public transport bus
cannot be ignored and overlooked. It is desirable
that punishment should follow offence as closely
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.254 of 2016 dt.20-01-2022
33/40
as possible. In an extremely serious criminal case
of the exceptional nature like the present one, it
would occasion in failure of justice if the
prosecution is not taken to the logical conclusion.
Justice is supreme. The retrial of the appellant, in
our opinion, in the facts and circumstances, is
indispensable. It is imperative that justice is
secured after providing the appellant with the
legal practitioner if he does not engage a lawyer
of his choice.”
38.In Mohd. Hussain II (supra) while holding that in an
extremely serious case of exceptional nature, it would occasion
in failure of justice if the prosecution is not taken to its logical
conclusion and that the retrial of the appellant is indispensable,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court answered the reference in para-47
as under:-
“In what we have discussed above we answer the
reference by holding that the matter requires to be
remanded for a de novo trial. The Additional
Sessions Judge shall proceed with the trial of the
appellant in Sessions Case No. 122 of 1998 from
the stage of prosecution evidence and shall further
ensure that the trial is concluded as expeditiously
as may be possible and in no case later than three
months from the date of communication of this
order.”
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.254 of 2016 dt.20-01-2022
34/40
39.In the instant case, when we closely look at the order
dated 17.09.2015 passed by the learned Trial Court, we find that
one of the grounds on which the application dated 08.09.2015
filed on behalf of the defence for recall of the prosecution
witnesses for cross-examining them under Section 311 of the
Cr.P.C. was rejected is that the accused persons had never
applied for appointment of a panel lawyer. The said view of the
Trial Court was clearly in breach of the provisions of Section
304 of the Cr.P.C. and Articles 21 and 22(1) of the Constitution
of India as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Mohd Hussain I (supra) wherein it has categorically
been held that in a trial before the Court of Session if the
accused is not represented by a pleader and has no sufficient
means, the court shall assign a pleader for his defence.
40.We are also of the opinion that in absence of any
evidence, the Trial Court has presumed that the defence was
adopting a delaying tactics. The order dated 17.09.2015 passed
by the Trial Court would further indicate that the Trial Court
was of the view that since Umesh Prasad Singh, an advocate,
was engaged by the accused persons before the Court of learned
Magistrate, there was no requirement for appointment of any
legal aid counsel. The said view of the Trial Court was
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.254 of 2016 dt.20-01-2022
35/40
completely erroneous. If a lawyer was appointed before the
Court of learned Magistrate and was not representing the
accused before the Court of Sessions, there could not have been
any presumption against the accused persons that the non-
appearance of the lawyer was a planned and deliberate move to
delay the trial and defeat the ends of justice.
41.In Anokhilal (supra), a three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court overturned a conviction and death sentence
ordered by the learned Trial Court for the reason that the
accused’s right to legal aid was violated. In that case a lawyer
was appointed by the Legal Services Authority for the accused a
day before hearing for framing of charges. On the date of
hearing, the lawyer was not present and a new lawyer was
appointed immediately by the Legal Services Authority.
However, on the same day, charges were framed under Sections
302, 363, 366, 376(2)(f) and 377 of the Indian Penal Code and
Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012. Not only were the charges framed the same
day, the trial itself got concluded within a fortnight thereafter.
42.In Anokhilal (supra) after taking note of the earlier
judgments on the point, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while
remanding the case back to the Trial Court for fresh
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.254 of 2016 dt.20-01-2022
36/40
consideration restated some principles on the right to free legal
aid, in para-22, which reads as under:-
“Before we part, we must lay down certain norms
so that the infirmities that we have noticed in the
present matter are not repeated:
(i) In all cases where 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.
(ii) 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.
(iii) Whenever any leaned 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.
(iv) Any leaned counsel, who is appointed as
Amicus Curiae on behalf of the accused must
normally be granted to have meetings and
discussion with the conceded accused. Such
interactions may prove to be helpful.”
43.In the instant case, the records would disclose that before
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.254 of 2016 dt.20-01-2022
37/40
the Court of learned Magistrate, the appellants were assisted by
one Umesh Kumar Singh, a learned counsel. However, after the
committal proceeding, the appellants were not assisted by any
lawyer either at the stage of framing of charge or thereafter till
the prosecution case was closed and their statements were
recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Thereafter, a lawyer
filed an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recall of the
prosecution witnesses for their cross-examination. Since the said
lawyer was not holding Vakalatnama executed by the appellants,
the Trial Court held that he was not authorised in law to file any
application on behalf of the appellants. Subsequently, at the
stage of arguments, on one date, the lawyer engaged before the
Court of Magistrate appeared before the Court, but he refused to
argue the case and, on the next date, he did not even turn up.
The records further disclose that right from the beginning i.e.
from the date of institution of the FIR, the accused persons were
in the jail custody. The records further reveal that the court did
not appoint any counsel to defend the accused persons. Since
the appellants were not being represented by any counsel, it was
the mandatory duty of the court to appoint a counsel to represent
them at all stages. The records reveal that the evidence of 11 out
of the 15 witnesses examined by the prosecution in support of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.254 of 2016 dt.20-01-2022
38/40
the charges including the eyewitnesses, the investigating officer
and the doctor were recorded by the Trial Court without any
cross-examination either by the accused persons or by their
advocate. The four other prosecution witnesses were cross-
examined by one of the accused personally (identity of whom is
not known). However, the testimony of those four witnesses
would reveal that the cross-examination conducted by the
accused-appellant was a mere formality in the name of cross-
examination.
44.It would thus be evident that the Trial Court did not think
it proper to appoint any advocate to defend the appellants when
the advocate engaged by him before the Court of learned
Magistrate did not appear from the stage of charge till the stage
of examination of witnesses and the recording of statements
under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
45.In our view, the right to a fair trial in the spirit of right to
life and personal liberty has been completely denied to the
appellants in the instant case by the learned Trial Court.
46.Apparently, in the pursuit of expeditious disposal of the
trial, the Trial Court has sacrificed the basic tenet of the criminal
jurisprudence i.e. “the cause of justice”. We are of the opinion
that the fast tracking of the trial has resulted in burying the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.254 of 2016 dt.20-01-2022
39/40
cause of justice.
47.In the circumstances going by the principles laid down by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suk Das (supra), Zahira
Habibullah Sheikh (supra), Mohd. Hussain I (supra), Mohd.
Hussain II (supra) and Anokhilal (supra), we agree with the
submissions made by Mr. Thakur, learned counsel for the
appellants.
48.We, therefore, have no hesitation in setting aside the
judgment of conviction dated 30.01.2016 and order of sentence
dated 02.02.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-IX, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No. 787 of 2014 arising
out of Paroo P.S. Case No. 56 of 2014 against the appellants and
directing for a de novo trial. The impugned judgment and order
are accordingly set aside.
49.The matter is remanded to the learned Trial Court with a
specific direction that the learned Trial Court would provide the
appellants a legal aid counsel in terms of the order passed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anokhilal (Supra), if the appellants
are unable to employee an advocate of their choice. The learned
Trial Court shall ensure that such legal aid counsel is provided
to the appellants before commencement of the trial till its
conclusion.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.254 of 2016 dt.20-01-2022
40/40
50.Since we are remanding the matter for fresh disposal, we
clarify that we have not expressed any opinion regarding the
merits of the case.
rohit/-
(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)
( Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 28-01-2022
Transmission Date 28-01-2022
Legal Notes
Add a Note....