Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
The Supreme court is of the view that the quick and timely delivery of justice should not be at the cost of burying the cause of justice. The court stated that:
"Expeditious disposal is undoubtedly required in criminal matters and that would naturally be part of guarantee of fair trial. However, the attempts to expedite the process should not be at the expense of the basic elements of fairness and the opportunity to the accused, on which postulates, the entire criminal administration of justice is founded. In the pursuit for expeditious disposal, the cause of justice must never be allowed to suffer or be sacrificed. 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.
An appeal was filed before the Court challenging the conviction and death sentence imposed for charges against an appellant of kidnapping a minor, rape, and murder. The appellant was arrested on February 4, 2013.
the trial court had examined 13 prosecution witnesses for the case within 7 days, by February 26, 2013. five dates thereafter, the hearing was held, before a judgment was passed against the appellant on March 4, 2013.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld this conviction and sentence afterward.
The appeal brought to light various flaws concerning the conduct of the case.
After crucial examination of all case records the court stated:
"In the present case, the Amicus Curiae was appointed on 19.02.2013, and on the same date, the council 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 time to go 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."
The Bench highlighted the significance of the right of hearing and the right to legal aid granted to an accused.
The Bench also stated:
"... 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 concluded 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."
The Supreme Court also issued guidelines pertaining to this stating that, for the trial of heinous offenses, which comprises of offenses punishable with life imprisonment or with death sentence, in such offenses, the appearing lawyers should have a minimum experience of 10 years practicing at the Bar.
86540
103860
630
114
59824