Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. In Tyron Nazareth's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court following the decision of Supreme Court in Khatri-II v. State of Bihar, 1981 (1) SCC 627 and Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, 1986 (2) SCC 401, held that convicted-appellant was not assisted by any lawyer and perhaps, he was not aware of the fact that the minimum sentence provided under the statute was 10 years' imprisonment and a fine of Rs. One lac. Therefore, the Supreme Court, in the circumstances of the matter, had set aside the conviction and case was remanded for 'de novo' trial. It was further held that the appellant, if not represented by a lawyer, may make a request to the Court to provide him a lawyer under Section 304 of Cr.P.C. or under any other Legal Aid Scheme and the Court may proceed with the trial afresh after recording a plea on the charges. The appeal was, therefore, allowed. The order of conviction and sentence recorded by the Special Court and confirmed by the High Court were set aside and a 'de novo' trial was ordered. The ratio propounded, in this case, is, squarely, attracted to the fact-situation of the appeal on hand. It appears that this decision was not brought to the notice of the trial Court. It has, therefore, resulted into miscarriage of justice.

14. The combined and conjoint reading of the provisions of Article 22(1) of the Constitution, Section 304 of Cr.P.C. and the provisions of Article 39-A of the Constitution and the provisions of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the right of accused to enjoy the services of an Advocate or a Counsel in a criminal case is unfettered and unqualified. It is not restricted to a particular kind or classes of offences. Most of the countries in the world have made it a constitutional right to have the assistance of a lawyer or a Counsel in criminal proceedings. Under the Sixth Amendment of United States' constitution, it is provided that any of criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right of Counsel. In short, it can very well be said that no proposition is more clearly established than that the person cannot be condemned without being heard. The Supreme Court of the United States in the famous case of Gideon, held that :

A plain perusal of the aforesaid provisions, evidently, leads us to believe that it is an obligation of the State Authority to provide free and competent legal aid to the persons, who are, unable to procure or engage services of a private lawyer on account of financial or any other disability. Fairness in trial of a person, who is facing an indictment is a basic feature of criminal jurisprudence. That is how, provisions are, specifically, incorporated in Section 304 of the Cr.P.C., which prescribe that legal aid shall be provided to the accused, in certain cases, at the State expenses. Section 304 reads as under :

46. The object and design of the provisions of Section 304 of Cr.P.C. is that legal aid should be provided to a poor or an indigent unaided accused in a Sessions trial case and it is a mandatory duty. Section 304(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, in fact, gives effect to the recommendations of the Law Commission for making legal-aid available in all trials before the Court of Sessions. The accused was tried before the Court of Sessions and, the record -does not show, clearly, that we can say that we are satisfied that he had replied to the question of the trial Court on the point of legal aid understanding or exercising his faculty of mind or his intelligence, and again, it is aptly manifested from the record and, also, admitted even, by the learned A.P.P. appearing before us, that there is nothing on record to suggest that the accused was given to understand by the Sessions Court that the offence with which he was charged, carries a minimum statutory sentence of 10 years and fine of Rs. 1 lac. So, on both counts, factually and legally, the trial against the accused before the Sessions Court cannot be characterised as "reasonable, fair and just".