Accused have a right to a fair trial and opportunity for effective cross-examination, which must be upheld by the court.

JUDGMENT

This original petition is filed by the accused Nos. 1 and 3 in C.C.No.2066/2014 of JFCM, Chittur for a direction to call for the records in the above criminal proceedings and to allow Ext.P2 petition, by setting aside Ext.P3 order.

2. The petitioners herein and the second respondent are facing trial before the court below for offence punishable under Section 498A read with section 34 IPC. The defacto complainant had married the first petitioner. The second petitioner and the second respondent are his parents. According to the petitioners herein on 8/4/2016, witnesses 1 to 4 were examined before the court below. The first accused cross examined the witnesses as party in person. The remaining accused did not get an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses and the case was adjourned to 13/4/2016. On that day, PW5 was examined and cross examined by the first accused. The remaining accused were never granted an opportunity to cross examine those O.P.(Crl.) No.288/2016 2 witnesses. The learned Magistrate never enquired with the accused as to whether they wanted to cross examine the witnesses. Hence, alleging that the court below was proceeding in a hasty manner, on a reasoning that there was a direction to dispose of the case in a time bound manner, the petitioners have approached this Court. It was contended that right for fair trial was prejudiced. Ext.P2 application was filed seeking permission to recall PWs 1 to 5, for cross examination. This was dismissed by the court below by Ext.P3 order.

3. Pursuant to the direction issued from this Court, the learned Magistrate has offered his comments also. The impugned order of the court below shows that the case stood posted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court and charge was framed on 12/1/2012. The parties were defended by a lawyer. However on 8/1/2013, the first accused filed an affidavit stating that he would be conducting the case in person. The accused reported that the advocate, who had filed vakalath for accused 1 to 3, has withdrawn his vakalath. Hence, on 5/3/2013 accused 2 and 3 were directed to engage another counsel by the next posting date. Pending so, the case was transferred to the Judicial First Class Magistrate O.P.(Crl.) No.288/2016 3 Court, Chittur . On 15/3/2016 the District Court directed the Magistrate to dispose of the case within two months from the date of receipt of that order, which in fact was on a request of the accused. On 22/3/2016, the accused persons engaged one advocate for representing them before the court. However, on 28/3/2016, the counsel relinquished the vakalath. In the meanwhile PW1 to PW5 were examined on 8/4/2016 and 13/4/2016, who were cross examined by the first accused in person. On 19/4/2016, Advocate Sureshkumar filed vakalth. On that day itself, CMP No.2578/2016 (Ext.P2)was filed seeking recalling of the witnesses. On 23/5/2016, PW7 was examined and evidence of prosecution was closed. The present original petition is filed when the case stood posted for questioning of the accused under Section 313 Crl.P.C. 4. The detailed narration of the above facts, which is not disputed by the accused, clearly show that all the accused had jointly engaged three lawyers at different stages. Two lawyers relinquished their vakalath. The first accused had offered to cross examine by himself and in fact he did cross examine the witnesses. The grievance set up by the petitioners herein is that the first accused does not know to read and write Malayalam and that the accused Nos. 2 and 3 could not O.P.(Crl.) No.288/2016 4 effectively cross examine the witnesses. The court below has reported that when the first accused offered to cross examine the witnesses, he was informed about his right to appoint an official translator from the court which he did not avail. He volunteered to cross examine the witnesses by himself without the aid of the translator. Hence, the claim of the first accused that he could not effectively cross examine the witnesse