Read Time: 09 minutes
Court noted that the trial court treated the accused as if he was carrying a magic wand which was available to produce highly qualified experts, who were government servants, on a phone call as there was no opportunity, in the real sense, for the appellant to cross-examine the experts
The Supreme Court has said that the essence of a fair and impartial trial lies in the steadfast embrace of judicial calm as it set aside the death penalty awarded to a man for rape and murder of a three-month-old girl child in April 2018 in Indore.
The top court noted that the trial in the case was conducted "in a hurried manner" within 15 days without affording sufficient opportunity to the appellant Naveen alias Ajay to even cross examine authors of FSL, DNA and Viscera report.
A bench of Justices B R Gavai, P S Narasimha and Prashant Kumar Mishra remitted back the matter to the trial court for de novo trial by affording proper opportunity to the appellant to defend himself.
Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in 'Zahira Habibulla H Sheikh & Anr Vs State of Gujarat & Ors' (2004) (known as ‘Best Bakery Case’) the bench pointed out that 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 being meaningless and stage-managed. It is in violation of the principle of judicial calm", it said.
"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 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, thus upholding the sanctity of justice for all," the bench said.
The court also relied upon the previous judgment in the case of 'Bashira vs State of UP', in almost similar situation, like in the present case arose, the trial was conducted in 13 days, and the apex court had then concluded that the conviction in a trial had been held in violation of rules and the award of death sentence would result in the deprivation of life in breach of the procedure established by law.
To appreciate the contention by the appellant of denial of fair trial, the bench went through the complete order sheet recorded by the trial court from April 27, 2018, the date of filing the charge sheet to May 12, 2018, the date of judgment. The FIR in the case was recorded on April 20, 2018, after the body of the victim was found.
"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 Viscera Report were presented before the Court during the course of trial on 04.05.2018," the bench said.
The court also noted that the accused was never asked as to whether he admitted the documents, as required under Section 294 of CrPC. Neither any witnesses or authors of reports were called to prove the documents, it said.
The court said that the high court brushed aside the objections by the appellant with regard to non examination of crucial witnesses.
"The trial court treated the accused as if he is carrying a magic wand which 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," the bench said.
The court set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court order which confirmed the trial court's conviction and sentence of death penalty against the appellant and ordered fresh trial after giving proper opportunity to defend himself. It also directed for providing assistance of a senior advocate to the appellant.
Case Title: Naveen @ Ajay Vs The State of Madhya Pradesh
Please Login or Register
