Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 768
High Court of Judicature at Madras
P. DEVADASS, J.
P. Kannan
Versus
State, rep. by The Inspector of Police, Valapadi Police Station, Salem District
Crl.O.P. No. 7731 of 2014
Decided on : 02-04-2014
For the Petitioner:T. Gowthaman, Advocate.
For the Respondent:K. Prabakar, Govt. Advocate (Crl Side).
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of the presumption of innocence, the duty of the defence counsel, and the need for fair trial in granting bail.
Headnote:
BAIL - Criminal Law - Section 302 of IPC - [Section 302 of IPC] - The court discussed the presumption of innocence, the duty of a lawyer to defend a person accused of a crime, and the importance of fair trial in granting bail to the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought bail after being accused of killing his wife and minor child. The defence counsel's actions were vindicated by the court in a related case. The prosecution opposed the bail, alleging that the petitioner was avoiding arguing the case.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the presumption of innocence, the duty of a lawyer to defend an accused, and the importance of fair trial. It found that the petitioner should be granted bail based on these considerations.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's right to bail, the duty of the defence counsel, and the presumption of innocence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the presumption of innocence, the duty of the defence counsel, and the importance of fair trial in granting bail.
Final Decision: Bail was granted to the petitioner with specific conditions.
Petition for bail.
2. Offence under Section 302 of IPC (two counts).
3. Petitioner is accused of having killed his wife and minor child. He is being prosecuted before the Mahila Court, Salem in the Sessions Case in S.C.No.270 of 2012.
4. Prosecution evidence is over. Petitioner has been examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The matter camp up for defence evidence. Thereafter, it came up for arguments.
5. At this juncture, petitioner filed C.M.P.No.311 of 2013 for sending Exs.P21 and P.32 for scientific comparison. On 26.09.2013, it was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem. On 22.10.2013, when the sessions case came up for hearing, petitioner filed a petition under Section 309 Cr.P.C. seeking adjournment as he wish to go in revision before this Court as against the order dated 26.9.2013. It was dismissed. On 23.10.2013, petitioner's counsel filed C.M.P.No.393 of 2013 under Section 317 Cr.P.C. seeking exemption from appearance for the accused. But, it was also dismissed. And NBW was issued.
6. On 30.10.2013, in Crl.R.C.No.1329 of 2013, this Court stayed the entire trial court proceedings. Further, on 8.11.2013, the stand taken by the defence counsel in CMP.No.311 of 2013 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge was upheld by this Court in Crl.RC.No.1329 of 2013 and the revision was allowed and direction has been issued for sending Exs.P21 and P.32 to the Forensic Science Department for comparison.
7. Presuming that he may not get fair justice, on 19.2.2014, petitioner filed transfer petition before this Court to transfer the sessions case from the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem to some other Court. It is pending. On 19.2.2014, NBW was executed. Petitioner was arrested. He was remanded. Since then he is in jail.
8. On 27.2.2014, petitioner filed C.M.P.No.110 of 2014 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Salem seeking bail. On 4.3.2104, the bail petition was dismissed.
9. Now, in this circumstances, in this Court, petitioner seeks bail.
10. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, for the simple reason that the defence counsel has taken steps in his professional capacity to defend his client/petitioner, petitioner is being penalized by the trial Court. The stand of the defence counsel also has been vindicated by this Court in Crl.R.C.No.1329 of 2013.
11. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the petitioner is a clever man. He has avoided arguing the case. Thus, prevents judgment being rendered in the sessions case. He is not entitled to any relief.
12. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions. Perused the relevant case records.
13. An Accused is presumed to be innocent. The guilt alleged as against him must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts. This is a golden principle of English criminal law, namely, Anglo-Saxonic Criminal Jurisprudence. (See Per Lord Justice Goddard in WOOLMINGTON VS. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS [1935 AC 462]. We have imported this principle of criminal law to India. Even now this is the basic principle of criminal law in India.
14. Till a person is held to be guilty, he is a normal man. His such right of presumption of innocence itself is his basic human right. It will be replaced only on recording a finding of guilty by a competent Court after giving him reasonable opportunity to the prosecution and the defence.
15. It is the constitutional duty, statutory responsibility of a lawyer to defend a person accused of a crime to the best of his ability and knowledge.(See Article 21, 22(1) , Constitution of India and Section 303 Cr.P.C.).
16. Now, in this case, the defence counsel thought that a petition to send Exs.P21 and P32 to Forensic Science Department for comparison is required to be filed. He did it. Of course at a belated stage. He may have his own reasons for the same. Thus, he filed the send for petition under Section 45 of the Evidence
