IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK DSREF Nos.3/2024 & JCRLA No.141/2024 (From the judgment and order dated 30.7.2024 passed by learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar in C.T.

Case No.322 of 2022) In DSREF No.3/2024 State of Odisha … Appellant -versus-

Sanjeet Dash @ Banku … Respondent Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:

For Appellant : Mr.P.S.Nayak, A.G.A.

-versus-

For Respondent : Mr. S.Ch. Mohapatra, Sr. Advocate Mr. P. Mohapatra, Advocate In JCRLA No.141/2024 Sanjeet Dash @ Banku … Appellant -versus-

State of Odisha … Respondent

JCRLA No. 141 of 2024 & DSREF No. 3 of 2024 Page 1 of 18

Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:

For Appellant : Mr. S.Ch. Mohapatra, Sr. Advocate . Mr. P. Mohapatra, Advocate -versus-

For Respondent : Mr.P.S.Nayak, A.G.A ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

ORDER

19.2.2026.

(Hybrid Mode)

This order arises out of the objection raised by the accused-appellant on the question of fair trial. Since this issue goes to the root of the matter, it was heard as a preliminary point.

2. Be it noted that the accused has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. for committing the murder of his wife and for the offences under Sections 324/326/307 I.P.C. for attempting to commit murder, voluntarily causing grievous hurt and voluntarily causing hurt to his minor daughter. As such, he has been

DSREF No. 3 of 2024 & JCRLA No. 141 of 2024 Page 2 of 18

sentenced to death for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., imprisonment for life under Section 307 I.P.C., imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. The proceedings have been submitted to this Court for confirmation under Section 366 of Cr.P.C. and registered as DSREF No.3/2024. Additionally, the accused has also preferred an appeal from jail, registered as JCRLA No.141 of 2024.

3. Heard Mr. S.Ch. Mohapatra, learned Senior counsel (Amicus Curiae) with Mr. P. Mohapatra learned counsel for the accused-appellant and Mr. P.S. Nayak, learned Addl.

Government Advocate for the State.

4. Mr. Mohapatra commences his argument by submitting that it is the constitutional mandate to ensure fair trial to a person accused of committing a crime. Unless this basic requirement is satisfied, the trial would stand vitiated. Coming to the case at hand, Mr. Mohapatra submits that the accused engaged a lawyer of his choice from the beginning, who conducted the case perfunctorily by declining to cross-examine some of the prosecution

JCRLA No. 141 of 2024 & DSREF No. 3 of 2024 Page 3 of 18

witnesses, including the I.O. Instead, he abruptly filed a memo of ‘no instruction’ on the date the I.O.(P.W.4) was examined. Though the Court appointed a lawyer as State Defence Counsel (SDC) yet, there is nothing on record to show that the rules prescribed for such appointment under the GRCO (Crl.) and the guidelines framed by this Court in this regard were followed. According to Mr. Mohapatra, the copy of the brief and records were not supplied to the SDC. Moreover, the accused was mostly produced through V.C. and the SDC was deprived of opportunity to consult with him resulting in lack of proper instructions being given to him. Though the SDC conducted the case thereafter till the last yet, it cannot be said that he did so effectively. As a result, the trial must be held to have been conducted unfairly. Mr. Mohapatra, cites the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Anokhilal v. State of M.P., (2019) 20 SCC 196 Bashira v. State of U.P., 1968 SCC OnLine SC 84and of this Court in the case of Habil Sindhu vs. State of Odisha3. He concludes his argument by submitting that the accused having been

3 2021 (I) ILR –CUT-767

DSREF No. 3 of 2024 & JCRLA No. 141 of 2024 Page 4 of 18

deprived of his fundamental right to a fair trial, the matter