Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 14, Cited by 0]

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Budida Usha Kiran vs The State Of Ap on 26 December, 2024

Author: K.Suresh Reddy

Bench: K.Suresh Reddy

    THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
                      AND
  THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY

  CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 &
                            551 of 2024

COMMON JUDGMENT:

(per the Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Sreenivasa Reddy) These Criminal Appeals are preferred against the judgment dated 11.10.2023 in Sessions Case No.49 of 2023 on the file of the Special Judge for trial of cases under the SCs and STs (PoA) Act, 1989-cum-VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru.

2. Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.195 of 2024 is A.2; appellant in Criminal Appeal No.207 of 2024 is A.1 and Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.551 of 2024 is A.3, in the aforesaid Sessions Case. In the said Sessions Case, the learned Special Sessions Judge tried the appellants herein, along with other accused A.4 to A.6.

3. Substance of charges against the accused is that

- on 13.06.2023 at about 9.00 PM, on the road situated at the back side road of Monastery, Vidya Nagar, Eluru, A.1 to 2 KSRJ & SRKJ CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024 A.4 conspired together to commit an offence i.e. to pour acid on Smt. Yadla Fransina @ Francinamma (hereinafter referred to, as 'the deceased'), and thereby they committed an offence punishable under Section 120B read with 34 IPC; that on the same date, time and place, A.2 and A.3 wrongfully restrained the deceased from proceeding further and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 341 IPC; that on the same date, time and place, A.2 and A.3, at the instigation of A.1, voluntarily caused grievous hurt by pouring acid on the deceased and thereby A.1 to A.3 committed an offence punishable under Section 326-A IPC; that on the same date, time and place, A.2 to A.4, at the instigation of A.1, intentionally and knowingly that their act would cause death, poured acid on her face and chest and caused death, and thereby A.1 to A.4 committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC; that on the same date, time and place, A.2 and A.3 committed the offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code, knowing fully well that the defacto complainant belongs to a member of Scheduled Caste and thereby 3 KSRJ & SRKJ CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024 committed offences punishable under Section 3 (2) (v) of the SCs and STs (PoA) Amended Act, 2015; that on the same date, time and place, A.2 and A.3 committed the offences punishable under IPC as mentioned in the schedule of SCs and STs (PoA) Amended Act, 2015, knowing fully well that the defacto complainant belongs to a member of Scheduled Caste and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 3 (2) (va) of the SCs and STs (PoA) Amended Act, 2015, and lastly that A.5 and A.6, prior to 13.06.2023 possessed and sold away corrosive acid to A.2 without proper licence and thereby contravened Rules 13 to 15 read with 19 of the A.P. Poisonous Possession and Sales Rules, 2016 punishable under Section 6 (1) (i) of the Poisonous Act, 2019.

4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows.

(a) The deceased is a married woman and blessed with a daughter and was residing in a portion of the house of her parents situated at Vidhya Nagar, Eluru, due to differences with her husband. P.W.1 is the mother, P.W.2 is the younger sister, and L.W.2-Y.Soulu Raju is the father, of 4 KSRJ & SRKJ CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024 the deceased. P.W.2, who also got married, is staying in the portion of her parents' due to disputes with her husband.

The deceased was working in Veda Priya Smart Dental Clinic, Vidhyanagar, Eluru, as a Receptionist. P.Ws.3 and 4 are the daughter and son of P.W.1, and they were residing on the backside of Monastery Missionary Institute, Vidhyanagar, Eluru. A.1 is a resident of Kothagudem Colony, Eluru, and he was a painter by profession. Two years prior to the incident, A.1 attended painting works in the house of P.W.1 and he got acquaintance with P.W.2, which became love and led to an extramarital relationship between them. A.1 used to visit the house of P.W.2 frequently. The deceased and P.W.4 did not like his visits to the home of P.W.2 and raised objection for A.1 visiting their house. On that, A.1 bore grudge and conspired with A.2 and A.3 to do away with the life of deceased by attacking her with Acid. A.2, with the help of his friend A.4, secured the acid from the shop of A.5 viz. Sri Vijaya Lakshmi General Stores at Clock Tower Center, Eluru, used to sell the acid unauthorizedly without any permission for high 5 KSRJ & SRKJ CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024 prices. A.6 was working as Clerk under A.5 in the said store of A.5. A.5 used to purchase the acid from a dealer/ P.W.12. A.2 informed A.4 about their conspiracy with A.1, and A.3 and A.4 had acquaintance with A.5 and purchased acid for Rs.100/- and kept in Kingfisher Beer Bottle and concealed it at Neem Tree situated at Badeti Chowk, Eluru. The deceased used to return to her home after completion of her duty in the hospital on her black color Hero Pleasure Scooter bearing Registration No. AP39RB 4609. A.1 to A.3 conducted Rekki at the route of the deceased to attack her with acid. They fixed the short gravel road between two cement roads with pits and road cutting, and there was the possibility of slowing down vehicles, and they fixed the said spot to execute their plan.

(b) On 13.06.2023 at about 7.00 p.m., A.3 secured motorcycle from P.W.14 through A.2, and at about 7.00 p.m., A.1 to A.3 went to the place where they kept the acid in the Beer Bottle, went to Delhi Bazaar Shop and purchased wide mouth bottle by A.1 and A.2 in the shop of P.W.15. A.1 to A.3 left the place by Activa Scooty, en route 6 KSRJ & SRKJ CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024 to Smart Dental Clinic, reached Vidhya Nagar Gandhi Bomma Center. A.1 got down at the Gandhi Statue Center, while A.2 and A.3 proceeded to the scene of the offence and waited for the phone call of A.1 about arrival of the deceased. At about 9:00 p.m., as usual, the deceased left the hospital by her Scooter and started going to her house. A.1 called A.2's Mobile Phone with SIM No.9390098270 from his Mobile Phone with SIM No.8897321139 and informed that the deceased was arriving at the spot. Then, A.2 and A.3 poured the acid into the wider mouth of the beer bottle and waited for the deceased's arrival. A.2 and A.3 noticed that the deceased was coming opposite them. A.2 sat on the Scooty readily to skulk away after the execution of their plan. The moment the deceased slowed down her vehicle at the spot, A.3 poured the acid on the face and chest of the deceased and caused acid-burned injuries. In that process, some Acid also fell on A.2 and A.3 and their Scooty. The clothes of A.2 and A.3 also got acid holes and they sustained burn injuries, and the paint of Scooty vanished at the place where the acid fell. A.2 and 7 KSRJ & SRKJ CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024 A.3 fled away from the spot by informing over his mobile phone about pouring acid on the deceased.

(c) The deceased with burn injuries reached her house with a hue and cry; P.Ws.1 and L.W.2 opened the doors and found the deceased with burn injuries. The deceased said two persons poured acid on her, and she was suffering from severe pain, and she was unable to see clearly. P.W.3, the sister of the deceased, and P.W.8, the neighbor, shifted the deceased to the hospital. P.Ws.9, 10, and L.W.11-Y. Kalpana came and witnessed the condition of the deceased. On the phone call of A.2, A.1 came to T.T.D.Kalyana Mandapam, Eluru. A.1 informed that P.W.2 was calling him and asked and A.3 to leave the place; later, he would contact them. A.2 and A.3 left for their houses, and on the way, they threw away the two bottles with some acid stains. They went to homes, changed their clothes, returned to the place where the bottles were thrown, and concealed their acid-stained clothes with bottles in the shrubs at Tammileru, Y.S.R. Colony. He handed over the Activa 8 KSRJ & SRKJ CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024 Scooter to P.W.14. P.W.27 recorded the statement of the deceased at Eluru Government Hospital.

(d) On 14.06.2023 at 00.30 hours on the report of P.W.1, P.W.28 the Circle Inspector of Police, Disha Women Police Station, Eluru, registered a case in Crime No.80/2023 U/s.341, 326-A, 307 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and submitted Ex P62 F.I.R. to Court and copies to the concerned officials. Pursuant to the same, police commenced investigation. On 21.06.2023 at 1.20 a.m., the injured/Fransina, succumbed to the injuries. Then P.W.29 filed a memo to alter Section of Law from 307 of I.P.C. to Section 302 of I.P.C. Later, P.W.29 conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators P.W.24 and L.W.29 K.V.Durgarao and also in the presence of blood relatives P.Ws.1 to 4, examined P.Ws.1 to 16, P.Ws.20 and 23 and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C. statements. After autopsy and completion of investigation and receipt of relevant documents, police laid the charge sheet. 9

KSRJ & SRKJ CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024

5. During trial, P.Ws.1 to 29 were examined and Exs.P1 to P104 were got marked, besides case properties M.Os.1 to 27, on behalf of the prosecution. When the accused were examined under Section 313 CrPC to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, they denied the same. A.1 examined himself as D.W.1. No documents were marked on behalf of the accused.

6. The learned Special Sessions Judge, vide the impugned judgment, found A.1 to A.3 guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 120B and 302 read with 34 IPC; A.2 and A.3 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 3 (2) (v) of the SCs and the STs (PoA) Amendment Act, 2015, and A.5 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 9 (1) (i) of the Poisons Act, 1919, and accordingly convicted them of the respective offences. The learned Special Sessions Judge sentenced A.1 to A.3 to undergo imprisonment for life each for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 120B IPC and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each (for each offence by each of the accused) in 10 KSRJ & SRKJ CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024 default of payment of fine amounts, they were sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months each (for each offence by each of the accused. The learned Special Sessions Judge further sentenced A.2 and A.3 to under imprisonment for life each for the offence punishable under Section 3 (2) (v) of the SCs and STs (PoA) Amendment Act, 2015 and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default of payment of fine, they were sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months each (for each of the accused). All the sentences imposed against A.1 to A.3 were directed to run concurrently.

The learned Special Sessions Judge sentenced A.5 to pay fine of Rs.500/- + Rs.5,00/-+Rs.500/-, total Rs.1,500/- , for the offence punishable under Section 6 (1) (i) of the Poisons Act, 1919 in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month each.

Challenging the convictions and sentences recorded by the learned Special Sessions Judge, the respective Criminal Appeals are preferred by the appellants-A.1 to A.3. 11

KSRJ & SRKJ CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024

7. Heard Sri C.Nageswara Rao, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri V.Uday Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.207 of 2024; Smt. A.Swarupa Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.551 of 2024 and Sri Kakumanu Joji Amrutha Raju, learned counsel for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.195 of 2024, and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State.

8. The learned senior counsel Sri C.Nageswara Rao submitted that the learned Special Sessions Judge conducted trial in a hurried manner, and a fair opportunity has not been given to the accused to defend their case, thereby depriving them of their valuable right, and completed trial in less than a month, without affording sufficient opportunity to the accused. He further submitted that some witnesses were examined by the learned Special Sessions Judge in the absence of A.1 to A.4, without ensuring presence of A.1 to A.4 and without they being produced from the Jail and without dispensing with their 12 KSRJ & SRKJ CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024 presence. It is his submission that the said procedure adopted by the learned Special Sessions Judge amounted to incurable illegality and caused great prejudice to the accused and it vitiates the trial. He submits that on this ground alone, the convictions and sentences recorded by the learned Special Sessions Judge are liable to be set aside. The other counsel appearing for the other appellants too concurred with the submissions of the learned senior counsel.

9. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State submitted that since the appellants were tried as under trial prisoners, the learned Special Sessions Judge is right in completing the trial without any delay, and there is no irregularity as the appellants were provided sufficient opportunity to defend their case. He further submits that the appellants have not raised any objection regarding the hasty completion of trial or denial of fair trial, and hence, at this stage, it is not open to them to contend so, and in view of the consistent evidence on record, the learned Special Sessions Judge rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants, and hence, there are no 13 KSRJ & SRKJ CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024 grounds to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge.

10. Perused the record. It is the main contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants that trial was conducted in a hurried manner and sometimes, witnesses were examined in the absence of production of the appellants before the Court from jail, and it caused prejudice and grave injustice to the appellants and they were denied of their right to fair trial. A perusal of the record goes to show that in this case, A.1 to A.4 were tried as under-trial prisoners. We have perused the copies of Order-sheets recorded by the trial Court in the aforesaid Sessions Case. A perusal of the same would go to show that on 13.07.2023, the learned Special Sessions Judge directed to issue summons to accused and posted the case to 27.07.2023. On 27.07.2023, being the day of first appearance, it was recorded thus:

"A1 to A4 produced from District Jail, Eluru. A5 and A6 present. Copies of case record are furnished to accused u/s.207 of CrPC. Sri BPCHS filed memo of appearance for A5 and A6. For hearing on charges and remand extended till 02.08.2023."
14

KSRJ & SRKJ CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024 From 27.07.2023, the Sessions Case was posted to 02.08.2023 for hearing on charges. On 02.08.2023, it was recorded thus:

"A.1 to A.4 are produced from District Jail, Eluru. A5 and A6 are present. They are examined U/s 228 (2) of Cr.P.C. Charges U/Sec. 120-B, 341, 326-A, 302 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3 (2) (va), 3 (2) (v) of SC ST (POA) Act are framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The following schedule is fixed for trial. LWs.1 to 4 -16.08.2023; LWs 5 to 8- 17.08.2023; LWs.9 to 12-18.08.2023; LWs 13 to 16- 21.08.2023; LWs.17 to 20-22.08.2023; LWs 21 to 24- 23.08.2023; LWs 25 to 28-24.08.2023; LWs 29 to 32- 25.08.2023; LWs 33 to 37-28.08.2023. Issue proceedings and issue notices to witnesses. Call on 16.08.2023."

From a perusal of the aforesaid orders, it is manifest that no advocate represented A.1 to A.4 on 27.07.2023, on which day, the Sessions Case was posted to 02.08.2023 'for hearing on charges'. On 02.08.2023 also, when the matter was posted 'for hearing on charges', no defence counsel represented A.1 to A.4 nor any legal aid counsel was appointed to represent A.1 to A.4. Having posted the matter 'for hearing on charges' to 02.08.2023, it is also not clear from the Order dated 02.08.2023, whether an opportunity of 15 KSRJ & SRKJ CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024 hearing was provided to the accused to put forth hearing on framing of charges. Without the accused being represented by their counsel, charges were framed against the accused on 02.08.2023, trial schedule was fixed and the case was posted to 16.8.2023.

11. On 16.08.2023, the order recorded thus:

"A.1 to A.4 produced from District Jail. A.5 and A.6 present. Sri GPD filed memo of appearance of A.1. Sri KNCHSB filed memo of appearance for A.2. P.W.1 and P.W.2 examined. Ex.P1 to P3 exhibited. The evidence of L.W.2 is given up by APP. R.E. till 17.08.2023."

From a perusal of the aforesaid order, it is manifest that Memos of Appearance were filed on behalf of A.1 and A.2 only, on 16.08.2023. It is not clear whether any Memo of Appearance was filed on behalf of A.3 and A.4 nor any legal aid counsel was appointed to defend them. Without there being any such steps, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined by the learned Special Sessions Judge and the matter was posted to the next day i.e. 17.08.2023, for further evidence.

12. A perusal of Order dated 17.08.2023 shows that Memo of Appearance was filed for A.3. It is not clear from the 16 KSRJ & SRKJ CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024 said Order also, as to whether any Memo of Appearance was filed on behalf of A.4. On that day, the matter was adjourned to 18.08.2023. On 18.08.2023, it is recorded that A.1 to A.4 were produced from District Jail; A.5 and A.6 present; P.Ws.4 to 7 examined; Ex.P6 marked. R.E. till 21.08.2023. It is not clear from the said Order also, as to whether any Memo of Appearance was filed on behalf of A.4.

13. Order dated 21.08.2023 shows that P.W.8 to P.W.10 examined; the evidence of L.W.11 is given up by APP; A.1 to A.4 not produced; A.5 and A.6 present; R.E. till 22.08.2023. A perusal of the said order makes it clear that on 21.08.2023, A.1 to A.4 were not present in the Court. It is not clear from the said order as to whether presence of A.1 to A.4 was secured through video conferencing. Therefore, P.Ws.8 to 10 were examined on 21.08.2023 in the absence of the accused. It is not clear from the said Order also, as to whether any Memo of Appearance was filed on behalf of A.4.

14. From a perusal of the Order dated 22.08.2023, it is clear that A.1 to A.4 were produced from jail and A.5 and A.6 were present; P.Ws.11 to 14 were examined and Exs.P5 to 17 KSRJ & SRKJ CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024 P11 and M.Os.5 and 6 were exhibited; remand extended till 23.08.2023. The order dated 23.08.2023 also reflects that A.1 to A.4 produced from District Jail, Eluru; A.5 and A.6 present; P.W.15 to P.W.17 were examined; Exs.P12 to P22 and M.O.7 were exhibited; R.E. till 24.08.2023. Even from the said Order also, it is not clear as to whether any Memo of Appearance was filed on behalf of A.4.

15. On 24.08.2023, it is recorded that A.1 to A.4 were produced through web conference by blue jeans; A.5 and A.6 present; P.Ws.18 to 21 were examined and Exs.P23 to P34 were exhibited; R.E. till 25.08.2024.

16. On 25.08.2023, it is recorded that A.1 to A.4 not produced; A.5 and A.6 present; P.Ws.22 to 24 were examined and Exs.P35 to P42 were exhibited; remand extended till 28.08.2023. On 28.08.2023, it is recorded that A.1 to A.4 were not produced; A.5 and A.6 present; P.W.25 examined and Exs.P43 to P54 and M.Os.11 to 16 were marked; R.E. till 29.08.2023. On 29.08.2023, it is recorded that A.1 to A.4 were not produced; A.5 and A.6 present; P.Ws.26 to 28 were examined and Exs.P55 to P61 and M.O.17 were exhibited; R.E. till 30.08.2023.

18

KSRJ & SRKJ CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024

17. A perusal of the said orders makes it clear that on 25.08.2023, 28.08.2023 and 29.08.2023, A.1 to A.4 were not present in the Court. It is not clear from the said orders as to whether A.1 to A.4 were produced through video conferencing. Therefore, P.Ws.22 to 28 were examined on the respective dates as mentioned above, in the absence of the accused. It is not clear from the said Order also, as to whether any Memo of Appearance was filed on behalf of A.4.

18. A perusal of the Orders dated 30.08.2023 and 31.08.2023, it is clear that A.1 to A.4 were produced from jail; A.5 and A.6 were present; P.W.26 was examined and Exs.P62 to P98 and M.Os.18 to 27 were marked. On 01.09.2023, it is recorded that A.1 to A.4 were produced from jail and A.5 and A.6 were present; P.W.25 was recalled and examined and Exs.P99 to P104 were marked; Prosecution side evidence was closed. It is not clear from the said Order also, as to whether any Memo of Appearance was filed on behalf of A.4.

19. The accused were examined under Section 313 CrPC on 05.09.2023. On 11.09.2023, petition filed under Section 315 CrPC was filed. On 12.09.2023, the said petition 19 KSRJ & SRKJ CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024 was allowed and A.1 was examined as D.W.1 and submitted separate statement. Defence evidence was closed. For arguments, the case was posted to 20.09.2023.

20. A perusal of the aforesaid proceedings before the learned Special Sessions Judge goes to show that on 02.08.2023, when the Sessions Case was posted 'for hearing on charges', no defence counsel represented A.1 to A.4 nor any legal aid counsel was appointed to represent A.1 to A.4. Having posted the matter 'for hearing on charges' to 02.08.2023, it is the bounden duty of the Presiding Officer to give sufficient time to the accused to engage their counsel and to inform the accused that they have right to be defended by an Advocate, and in case the accused failed to engage their counsel, the Presiding Officer has to take steps to appoint a legal aid counsel to defend the accused. But, such course of action was not followed by the learned Special Sessions Judge. It is also evident from the aforesaid proceedings recorded by the learned Special Sessions Judge that P.Ws.22 to 28 were examined on the respective dates as mentioned above, in the absence of the accused.

20

KSRJ & SRKJ CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024

21. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Naveen alias Ajay v. State of Madhya Pradesh1 wherein it is held thus: (paragraphs 14 &

16) "14. In the case of Anokhilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 2020 SC 232), this Court, after referring to Best Bakery (supra) on the issue, has held in paragraphs 21 to 23 as follows:--

"21. In the present case, the Amicus Curiae, was appointed on 19.02.2013, and on the same date, the counsel 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.
22. The provisions concerned viz. Sections 227 and 228 of the Code contemplate framing of charge upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted herewith, and after 'hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in that behalf'. If the hearing for the purposes of these provisions is to be meaningful, and not just a routine affair, the right under the said provisions stood denied to the appellant.
23. In our considered view, 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 1 AIR 2023 SC 5254 21 KSRJ & SRKJ CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024 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 conducted 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."

15. This Court, in Anokhilal (supra), also set aside the conviction and sentenced imposed by the Trial Court and the High Court and directed for de novo trial. This Court also laid down certain norms in matters where the accused is represented by a counsel appointed through legal aid. The norms, as stated in paragraph 31 of the said judgment are reproduced hereunder:--

"31.1 xxx 31.2 xxx 31.3 Whenever any learned 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.

16. It was further observed that there can be no analytical, all-comprehensive or exhaustive definition of the concept of a fair trial, and it may have to be determined in seemingly infinite variety of actual situations with the ultimate object in mind viz. whether something that was done or said either before or at the trial deprived the quality of fairness to a degree where a miscarriage of justice has resulted. 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 22 KSRJ & SRKJ CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024 as is to the victim and the society. Fair trial obviously would mean a trial before an impartial judge, a fair prosecutor, and the atmosphere of judicial calm. Fair trial means a trial in which bias or prejudice for or against the accused, the witnesses, or the cause which is being tried is eliminated. It is inherent in the concept of due process of law, that condemnation should be rendered only after the trial in which the hearing is a real one, not sham or a mere farce and pretence. 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 & stage-managed. It is in violation of the principle of judicial calm."

22. There cannot be dispute with regard to the proposition of law that the procedural requirements, which ensure fairness in trial, must be adhered to strictly. A hasty trial in which proper and sufficient opportunity has not been provided to the accused to defend himself would vitiate the trial as being meaningless and stage-managed, which is in violation of the principle of judicial calm. 23

KSRJ & SRKJ CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024

23. In the case on hand, trial started on 16.08.2023 and ended on 12.09.2023. During the said period, as many as 29 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and as many as 104 documents and 27 material objects were marked. During the said period, A.1 examined himself as D.W.1. Coming to framing of charges, as contemplated under Sections 227 and 228 CrPC, framing of charges is upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after 'hearing submissions of the accused and the prosecution in that behalf'. The learned Special Sessions Judge posted the case from 27.07.2023 to 02.08.2023 for hearing on charges. It is evident from the Order dated 02.08.2023, neither any counsel appeared on behalf of the accused nor any legal aid counsel was appointed to defend the accused and submit hearing nor any hearing took place on framing of charges on that day. The learned Special Sessions Judge ought to have afforded an opportunity to the accused to engage a counsel, instead of proceeding with framing of charges without hearing the accused. Further, the learned Special Sessions Judge ought to have ensured presence of A.1 to A.4, either physically or virtually, on the 24 KSRJ & SRKJ CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024 date of examination of some of the witnesses viz. P.Ws.22 to 28, on the relevant dates mentioned supra. A fair trial has to be determined in seemingly infinite variety of actual situations with the ultimate object in mind viz. whether something that was done or said either before or at the trial deprived the quality of fairness to a degree where a miscarriage of justice has resulted. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naveen alias Ajay v. State of Madhya Pradesh case (1 supra), the principle of 'judicial calm' in the context of a fair trial needs to be elaborated for its observance in letter and spirit. The Hon'ble Apex Court also observed that trial has been conducted on day-to-day basis wherein the accused, who was in jail and defended by a counsel from legal aid, was compelled by the trial Court to produce defence witness of his own in one day. In the case on hand, the irregularities or infringements during trial would certainly cause prejudice to the accused and as a result the same would vitiate the trial. Hence, the convictions and sentences recorded by the learned Special Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment are liable to be set aside, and ends of justice would be met, if the matter is remanded for 25 KSRJ & SRKJ CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024 conducting de novo trial by affording proper opportunity to the accused to defend themselves.

24. In the result, the Criminal Appeals are allowed. The judgment dated 11.10.2023 in Sessions Case No.49 of 2023 on the file of the Special Judge for trial of cases under the SCs and STs (PoA) Act, 1989-cum-VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the trial Court for de novo trial by affording sufficient opportunity to the accused to defend their case in a proper perspective. It is needless to mention here that remanding the matter back would eventually be status quo ante from the stage of hearing the accused on framing of charges. The learned Special Sessions Judge is directed to dispose of the subject Sessions Case within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.

25. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel Sri C.Nageswara Rao that an application has been filed seeking bail by the appellants, but the learned Special Sessions 26 KSRJ & SRKJ CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024 Judge, instead of disposing of the same, went ahead in conducting trial, and hence, a direction be given to the trial Court to dispose of the bail application. It is pertinent to mention here that when the learned Special Sessions Judge has not taken up the bail application of the accused, it is not known as to why the accused have not preferred a petition seeking bail in a higher forum. Irrespective of the same, the learned Special Sessions Judge is directed to dispose of the bail application initially, on merits, in accordance with law.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the Criminal Appeals shall stand closed.

_____________________________ JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY __________________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY 26.12.2024 DRK 27 KSRJ & SRKJ CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY COMMON JUDGMENT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024 26.12.2024 DRK