Crl.A. 1161/2019

Page 1 of 6

$~4

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

+

CRL.A. 1161/2019 & CRL.M.A. 37692/2019

NARENDER @ LALA

..... Appellant

Represented by:

Mr. Abhay Kumar, Mr. Rahul Ranjan,

Advs.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

..... Respondent

Represented by:

Mr. Mukesh Kumar, APP for State

with Insp. Rajiv, PS Mangol Puri.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL

MUKTA GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

1.

By this appeal the appellant challenges the impugned judgment dated

20^th March, 2018 convicting the appellant for offence punishable under

Section 302 IPC and the order on sentence dated 4^th May, 2018 directing

him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of ₹10,000/-

2.

The allegations of the prosecution against the appellant are that he

committed the murder of his wife Anju by strangulating her to death. The

main challenge of the appellant in this appeal and the application filed is that

during the substantial course of trial, the appellant was not represented by a

lawyer and hence the trial in the absence of a lawyer has seriously

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003578

Crl.A. 1161/2019

Page 2 of 6

prejudiced him. The appellant by the application thus seeks recalling of all

the prosecution witnesses so that he is ensured a fair trial.

3.

A perusal of the Trial Court Record would reveal that when the trial

started at the stage of arguments on charge and till PW-8 was recorded, the

appellant was represented by a counsel duly appointed by him. However, at

the time when PW-9 to PW-18 were recorded from 17^th November, 2017,

the appellant was not represented by the counsel and thus these witnesses

were examined with opportunity to the accused himself to cross-examine the

said witnesses. Thereafter, on 11^th December, 2017 another counsel from

legal aid was assigned the case and on the same date PW-20 and PW-21,

PW-22 were examined and discharged. Obviously, since learned counsel

for the legal aid had been appointed on that day itself, there was no cross-

examination of the said witnesses done by the legal aid counsel. However,

on the next date PW-19 was cross-examined by the learned counsel on

behalf of the appellant provided through legal aid to the appellant and thus

PW-19 was cross-examined but she failed to cross-examine PW-23 and PW-

24. Though on a subsequent date cross-examination of PW-25 and PW-29

was duly carried out.

4.

The manner in which the trial is conducted, there was a serious denial

of fair trial to the appellant. The appellant is required to be given an

opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses i.e. the witnesses examined in

the absence of the lawyer, or the lawyer having been appointed on the same

day from the legal aid and asked to cross-examine the witnesses.

5.

In the decision reported as (1980) 1 SCC 98 Hussainara Khatoon (IV)

Vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar Supreme Court dealing with Article 39-

A, added to the Constitution, emphasized that free legal aid was an

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003578

Crl.A. 1161/2019

Page 3 of 6

unalienable element of a “reasonable, fair and just” procedure, for without it

a person suffering from economic or other disabilities would be deprived

from securing justice. It was held:.

six weeks from today.”

6.

In similar facts Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision reported as

(2012) 2 SCC 584 Mohd. Hussain Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (in

short Mohd. Hussain-I) on going through the record of proceedings of the

learned Sessions Court noted that mid-way through the case the learned

counsel appointed for the appellant disappeared from the scene and the

accused was not asked whether he would be able to engage a counsel or

wish to have a counsel appointed for him. The Supreme Court noted that

This is a digitally signe