Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SARANG V. KOTWAL, SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
The State Of Maharashtra - Appellant
Versus
Vilas Annasaheb Mahale - Respondent
CONFIRMATION CASE NO. 5 OF 2019, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1645 OF 2019, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 373 OF 2022, INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3948 OF 2022, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 373 OF 2022, INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4043 OF 2022, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 373 OF 2022
Decided On : 24-03-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. consensus on remand for fair trial denial. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. child rape-murder by relatives; investigation and charges. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. prosecution evidence amid legal aid lapses. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 4. defence challenges trial fairness and evidence chain. (Para 45 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57) |
| 5. mandatory legal aid rules in capital cases. (Para 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62) |
| 6. chronic failures in providing effective defence counsel. (Para 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80) |
| 7. article 21 mandates effective legal aid. (Para 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88) |
| 8. de novo trial ordered from charge framing stage. (Para 89) |
JUDGMENT :
SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
1. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, vide her Judgment and order dated 15.05.2019 passed in Sessions Case No.209 of 2017 on her file, has forwarded the death penalty reference resulting in Confirmation Case No.5 of 2019 to this Court for confirmation of the sentence of death penalty imposed on the original Accused No.1 Vilas Annasaheb Mahale for commission of the offence punishable U/s.302 of the I.P.C.
The said Accused No.1 Vilas has preferred Criminal Appeal No.1645 of 2019 challenging the same Judgment and order.
The original Accused No.2 Annasaheb Baburao Mahale, the original Accused No.3 Pravin Annasaheb Mahale and the original Accused No.4 Shailabai Annasaheb Mahale have preferred Criminal Appeal No.373 of 2022 challenging their conviction and sentence recorded in the same Judgment and order.
During the pendency of these proceedings the original Accused No.2 Annasaheb Baburao Mahale has passed away and, therefore, the Criminal Appeal No.373 of 2022 stands abated, as far as, he is concerned. It is now proceeding only against the original Accused Nos.3 and 4.
For convenience, the accused are referred to by their original status in the trial as accused.
2. Heard Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhary, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 in Confirmation Case No.5 of 2019 and for Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1645 of 2019, Ms. Ameeta Kuttikrishnan, learned appointed Advocate for the Respondent No.2 in Conf. Case No.5 of 2019, Mr. K. H. Holambe Patil, learned counsel for the Appellants in Criminal Appeal No.373 of 2022 and Smt. S. D. Shinde, learned APP for the State/Appellant in Confirmation Case No.5 of 2019 and other connected Appeals.
3. We have heard all the learned counsel at some length. Learned APP took us through the entire evidence. In response, Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for the original Accused No.1 made some submissions on merits of the matter. His main thrust of the argument was that the Accused No.1 was denied the opportunity of a fair trial. He submitted that, since there was failure of justice, either the Accused No.1 be acquitted or the matter be remanded back for de novo trial.
4. Mr. Holambe Patil, learned counsel appearing for the Accused Nos.3 and 4 made his submissions for acquittal of the accused Nos.3 and 4, but he also supported the submissions of the learned counsel for the Accused No.1 that the matter can be remanded back.
5. After these submissions were advanced before us, in response, learned APP specifically submitted before the Court that, since proper opportunity was not given to the Accused No.1 to defend himself, the matter be remanded back before the Trial Court for de novo trial.
6. Learned counsel Ms. Ameeta Kuttikrishnan appearing for the Respondent No.2 addressed us on the merits of the matter, but she also conceded that the matter is required to be remanded back for de novo trial.
7. Thus, not only the counsel appearing for the defence, but also the counsel for the Respondent No.2, as well as, the learned APP unanimously submitted before us that the matter be remanded back before th
Failure to provide timely, effective legal aid in death penalty trial, denying representation during key stages, violates Article 21 fair trial right, requiring de novo proceedings despite offence gr....
A fair trial must guarantee competent legal representation and adherence to procedural law, failure of which invalidates conviction.
(1) Justice is not intended to be imparted to one party of lis only.(2) Attempts to expedite process of trial should not be at expense of basic elements of fairness and opportunity to Accused on whic....
(1) Examination of accused – Public Prosecutor is under obligation to remain present when examination of accused is made to assist Court.(2) Right to get legal aid is a fundamental right of accused, ....
Legal aid to accused – To ensure a fair trial accused has to be appropriately represented – Basic tenets of a criminal trial would falter if a different approach is undertaken by trial court.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
