1973 JTR(SC) 328
1974 AIR(SC) 1143 ; 1973 CriLR 753 ; 1974 CrLJ 799 ; 1974 3 SCC 581 ; 1974 SCC(Cri) 59 ; 1974 SCD 139 ; 1974 2 SCR 72 ; 1973 2 SCWR 535 ; 1974 UJ 25 ; 1973 KLT(Online)(SC) 1183 ; 1973 KLT(Online) 1183 ; 1974 KHC 762
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.R. KRISHNA IYER AND R.S. SARKARIA, JJ.
Ranchod Mathur Wasawa, Petitioner
Versus
State of Gujarat, Respondent.
Special Leave to Appeal (Cri) No. 674 of 1973, D/- 15-10-1973.
Indigence must not preclude a fair trial. Courts are obligated to appoint competent legal counsel for undefended accused in grave cases, ensuring they are provided with sufficient time and materials to provide an effective defense.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
: Art.22(1)
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: S.340
(A) Criminal Law - Fair Trial - Legal Aid - Indigence should never be a ground for denying fair trial or equal justice - In grave cases, courts must ensure the appointment of competent advocates for undefended accused, rather than providing patronising gestures to raw entrants to the Bar - Sufficient time and complete papers must be made available to the chosen advocate to ensure the cause of justice is served with full ability.
(B) Appointment of Amicus Curiae - Timing of appointment - The appointment of counsel on the day the trial commences is an unfortunate feature; however, if the court ensures the counsel is equipped (e.g., by postponing examination of witnesses) and the cross-examination does not suffer for want of time or facility, the trial is not necessarily vitiated - Courts should maintain a sensitive approach to ensure the accused feels confident that the court-appointed counsel has had adequate time and material to defend them properly.
Facts of the case:
A petition was filed by an incarcerated person challenging a conviction. The petitioner raised a grievance that the court-appointed counsel was only appointed on the day the trial commenced, alleging that this hindered the defense.
Findings of Court:
The court found no reason to disagree with the findings of guilt. Regarding the legal representation, it was observed that the trial judge postponed the examination of important witnesses to the next day to allow the counsel to prepare. A perusal of the papers indicated that the cross-examination did not suffer due to a lack of time or facilities for the counsel.
Issues: Whether the late appointment of an amicus curiae for an indigent accused resulted in a denial of a fair trial and equal justice.
Ratio Decidendi: While the right to a fair trial requires the provision of competent and timely legal aid to indigent accused persons, a procedural delay in appointing counsel does not invalidate the proceedings if the court takes active steps to ensure the counsel is adequately prepared and the defense is not prejudiced.
Result: Petition dismissed.
(B) Appointment of Amicus Curiae - Timing of appointment - The appointment of counsel on the day the trial commences is an unfortunate feature; however, if the court ensures the counsel is equipped (e.g., by postponing examination of witnesses) and the cross-examination does not suffer for want of time or facility, the trial is not necessarily vitiated - Courts should maintain a sensitive approach to ensure the accused feels confident that the court-appointed counsel has had adequate time and material to defend them properly.
Facts of the case:
A petition was filed by an incarcerated person challenging a conviction. The petitioner raised a grievance that the court-appointed counsel was only appointed on the day the trial commenced, alleging that this hindered the defense.
Findings of Court:
The court found no reason to disagree with the findings of guilt. Regarding the legal representation, it was observed that the trial judge postponed the examination of important witnesses to the next day to allow the counsel to prepare. A perusal of the papers indicated that the cross-examination did not suffer due to a lack of time or facilities for the counsel.
Issues: Whether the late appointment of an amicus curiae for an indigent accused resulted in a denial of a fair trial and equal justice.
Ratio Decidendi: While the right to a fair trial requires the provision of competent and timely legal aid to indigent accused persons, a procedural delay in appointing counsel does not invalidate the proceedings if the court takes active steps to ensure the counsel is adequately prepared and the defense is not prejudiced.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Judgment
KRISHNA IYER, J. :- A petition from jail - this is one - demands closure judicial care and we have with deep concern scanned the materials placed before us in the light of the grounds of grievance urged in this appeal. We find no reason to disagree with the findings of guilt and refuse special leave. Even so, we are disturbed, having a look at the proceedings in this case, that the Sessions Judges do not view with sufficient seriousness the need to appoint State Counsel for undefended accused in grave cases. Indigence should never be a ground for denying fair trial or equal justice. Therefore, particular attention should be paid to appoint competent advocates, equal to handling the complex cases, not patronising gestures to raw entrants to the Bar. Sufficient time and complete papers should also be made available, so that the advocate chosen may serve the cause of justice with all the ability at his command. In the present case, the accused has made a grievance that the amicus curiae came into the picture only on the day the trial commenced. This is an unfortunate feature. Nevertheless, we are satisfied that by postponing the examination of the important witnesses to the next day the learned Judge helped counsel to equip himself fully. We are also satisfied from a perusal of the papers that the cross-examination has not suffered for want of time or facility for counsel for the accused. We would, however, emphasize that in all these cases there should be a sensitive approach made by the court to see that the accused felt confident that his counsel chosen by the court has had adequate time and material to defend him properly. With these observations, we dismiss the petition.
Petition dismissed.
For Citation : AIR 1974 SC 1143