IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SRI R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR & SRI A. A. SAYED, JJ.
Baliram Madhukar Dalvi — Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra — Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 594 OF 2007
Decided on : DECEMBER 5, 2007.
Legal Aid - Criminal Law - Section 302 of I.P.C. - Section 323 - Section 120-B read with section 34 of I.P.C. - Section 304 of Cr.P.C. - Legal Aid to Unrepresented Accused Person in Cases Before the Court of Session Rules, 1982 - The judgment discusses the failure of the Sessions Court to provide legal assistance to the accused, the mandatory provisions of legal aid, and the duty of the court to ensure the accused's statutory right to legal assistance. The court highlighted the need for proper compliance with legal aid provisions, the duty of the Sessions Judge to ensure legal assistance to unrepresented accused persons, and the violation of the accused's statutory right and constitutional mandate under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The judgment also emphasized the importance of legal awareness and the need for Sessions Judges to be alert and conscious about their obligations to ensure legal assistance to unrepresented accused persons.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was made to face trial without legal aid and was convicted under Section 302 of I.P.C. The appellant preferred an appeal through jail, highlighting the failure of the Sessions Court to provide necessary legal assistance.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Sessions Court had failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of legal aid, resulting in the denial of the appellant's statutory right to legal assistance and violation of the constitutional mandate under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Issues: The issues revolved around the failure of the Sessions Court to provide legal assistance to the accused, the mandatory provisions of legal aid, and the duty of the court to ensure the accused's statutory right to legal assistance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for proper compliance with legal aid provisions, the duty of the Sessions Judge to ensure legal assistance to unrepresented accused persons, and the violation of the accused's statutory right and constitutional mandate under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The court set aside the impugned judgment and ordered the acquittal of the appellant, highlighting the denial of the appellant's statutory right to legal assistance and the violation of the constitutional mandate under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Per Sri R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.
. This is an appeal filed from jail by a person who was made to face the trial without assistance of any lawyer or any sort of legal aid before the Sessions Court, in spite of full knowledge about the same to the concerned presiding officer of the Sessions Court as well as the learned prosecutor before the Sessions Court. The appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.
2. The appellant was sought to be charged under Section 302, 323, 120-B read with section 34 of I.P.C., on the ground that he along with three others on 10th February 1997 at about 5 p.m. within the limits of village Mhasewadi, taluka Manegaon, district Raigad, in furtherence of common intention committed murder by intentionally or knowingly causing death of one Shankar Babu Shelar and voluntarily causing hurt to Chandana Chandrakant Shelar. The charge in that regard was framed by Shri S.D. Mohod, then Sessions Judge at Raigad-Alibag in Sessions Case No. 96 of 1997 on 14th February 1998. The appellant was in fact arrested on 13th February 1997 itself. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. Recording of evidence commenced on 20th April 1998 The prosecution examined 9 witnesses and the recording of last witness was concluded on 17th July 1998, while same judicial officer was presiding over the Sessions Court Raigad all throughout. By judgment dated 15th February 1999, the same Sessions Judge acquitted other three accused, while convicting the appellant herein under Section 302 of I.P.C.
3. The appellant preferred appeal through Jail. When the same came up for hearing on admission 24th August 2007, as the appellant was not represented by the advocate, the registry was directed to appoint an advocate from the panel of advocates prepared for legal aid service. Accordingly Shri Rajan Salvi advocate came to be appointed as advocate for the appellant from the legal aid pannel. The matter was thereafter fixed for admission on 5th October 2007. Accordingly, when the matter came up for hearing on 5th October 2007, none appeared for the appellant. Since the record disclosed that Shri Rajan Salvi, advocate, was appointed and as he had failed to appear for the appellant, the office was directed to appoint Kum. Rebeca Gonsalves to represent the appellant. Matter was then adjourned to 19th October 2007.
4. When the matter came up for hearing on 19th October 2007, since the R & P was received at that time, in order to enable the advocate for the appellant to go through the said record, at her request the matter was adjourned to 26th October 2007, on which date the matter was again adjourned at the request of learned advocate for the appellant to 20th November 2007. When the matter came up for hearing on 20th November 2007, the learned advocate for appellant pointed out certain serious irreglarities in the trial before the trial Court, and therefore, we found it necessary in the interest of justice to fix the matter for final disposal at the admission stage itself, and the matter was fixed for this date i.e. today and the matter has been heard accordingly.
5. Taking us through the records particularly the roznama sheets before the Sessions Court, the evidence recorded before the Sessions Court, the plea of the appellant recorded before the Sessions Court and the impugned judgment, the learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the court below in total disregard to the mandatory provisions in relation to the procedure to be followed in cases where accused is not represented by an advocate in Sessions trial, without giving proper opportunity to the appellant of availing necessary legal assistance and proper representation by an advocate, concluded the tria
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.