Read the situations given below and state whether the details indicate a fair trial or an unfair trial
a) The accused in a case did not have enough money to hire a lawyer, so the magistrate appointed a defence lawyer at the government's expense.
b) The judge was partial in her decision in favour of the accused even though the evidence found him guilty.
C) The defence lawyer was not given an opportunity to present the witness in the defence of the accused.
d) The defence lawyer was given an opportunity to cross-examine all the prosecution witnesses
Answers
Answer:
In the battle against crime and delinquency, state and its officers cannot on any account forsake the decency of state behaviour and have recourse to extra-legal methods for the sake of detention of crimes and even criminals. State should not insist on good behaviour from others when their own behaviour is blameworthy, unjust and illegal. Thus, in a democratic society even the rights of the accused are sacrosanct, though accused of an offence, he does not become a non-person. In the leading case of Kishore Singh Ravinder Dev v. State of Rajasthan, it was said that the laws of India i.e. Constitutional, Evidentiary and procedural have made elaborate provisions for safeguarding the rights of accused with the view to protect his (accused) dignity as a human being and giving him benefits of a just, fair and impartial trail.
There are various facets to the right to a fair trial. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr vs State Of Gujarat has held that, “the principle of fair trial now informs and energizes many areas of the law. It is reflected in numerous rules and practices.... fair trial obviously would mean a trial before an impartial Judge, a fair prosecutor and atmosphere of judicial calm. Fair trial means a trial in which bias or prejudice for or against the accused, the witnesses, or the
The Cr.P.C. provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused has a right to have the assistance of a counsel and the Cr.P.C. also requires the court in all criminal cases, where the accused is unable to engage counsel, to appoint a counsel for him at the expenses of the State. Howsoever guilty the appellant upon the inquiry might have been, he is until convicted, presumed to be innocent. It was the duty of the Court, having these cases in charge, to see that he is denied no necessary incident of a fair trial. It is equally true that the absence of fair and proper trial would be violation of fundamental principles of judicial procedure on account of breach of mandatory provisions of Section 304 of
In Ram Awadh v. State of U.P, the Allahabad High Court held:
“The requirement of providing counsel to an accused at the State expense is not an empty formality which may be not by merely appointing a counsel whatever his calibre may be. When the law enjoins appointing a counsel to defend an accused, it means an effective counsel, a counsel in real sense who can safeguard the interest of the accused in best possible manner which is permissible under law. An accused facing charge of murder may be sentenced to death or imprisonment for life and consequently his case should be handled by a competent person and not by a novice or one who has no professional expertise. A duty is cast upon the Judges before whom such indigent accused are facing trial for serious offence and who are not able to engage a counsel, to appoint competent persons for their defence. It is needless to emphasis that a Judge is not a prosecutor and his duty is to discern the truth so that he is able to arrive at a correct conclusion. A defence lawyer plays an important role in bringing out the truth before the Court by cross-examining the witnesses and placing relevant materials or evidence. The absence of proper cross-examination may at times result in miscarriage of justice and the Court has to guard against such an eventuality. ”
Where in a criminal appeal the council appointed by the Court for the accused does not turn up at the time of hearing and the appeal is disposed of without hearing him, the case rightly deserved to be remanded for fresh hearing of the appeal.
Where in a sessions trial the accused made a request for being provided the services of a particular lawyer named by him at the State expenses as envisaged under Section 304 CrPC but the State provided another lawyer to defend him,
Case: Ramchandra Nivrutti Mulak Vs. The State of