Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Supreme Court observed that wherever death penalty was a prescribed form of alternative punishment, the court should make sure that all opportunities were given to the accused. The three judge bench of Justice UU Lalit, Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice Krishna Murari laid down some norms to ensure the same.
In the present case, the Amicus Curiae was called in to defend the accused on the very day he was appointed. The SC was thus sure that the Amicus Curiae did not have proper time to prepare for the matter. The Amicus Curiae also did not have any chance to meet and discuss the matter with the accused. Thus the Court inferred that the charge against the accused was framed even before the Amicus Curiae had any chance to come to grips with the matter. The trial was also finished within a fortnight and death penalty was awarded to the accused for raping a 9 year old girl.
The SC regarding this held “What is paramount is the cause of justice and keeping the basic ingredients which secure that as a core idea and ideal, the process may be expedited, but fast tracking of process must never ever result in burying the cause of justice.” It was hence held that Trial Court should have given some time to the Amicus Curiae to prepare for the matter.
“The entire trial was completed in less than one month with the assistance of the prosecution as well as the defense, but, such expeditious disposal definitely left glaring gaps.”
The SC thus directed a de novo consideration of the matter.
Anokhilal v. State of Madhya Pardesh, CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs.62-63 OF 2014.
86540
103860
630
114
59824