Delhi High Court acquits convict who did not get legal representation before trial court

The Delhi High Court recently acquitted a man convicted for preparation of dacoity noting that he was not provided legal aid, a right guaranteed to him under the Constitution of India [Sunil v State]..Single-judge Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed that right to fair trial is a fundamental right and this right will be vitiated if a poor man charged with an offence is unable to defend himself without a lawyer to assist him.The judge said that legal aid is also a right and the judiciary has to remain vigilant to protect the interest of the poor. The court noted that in the present case, the accused named Sunil has faced trial for nearly 15 years which has already been an unannounced punishment.“Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court’s judicial conscience does not permit to now remand back the matter and direct the learned Trial Court to again conduct a fresh trial. In view thereof, the accused is acquitted of all the charges since the trial in itself was vitiated due to non-assistance of accused by legal aid counsel, besides existence of several inconsistencies and lacunae in the case of prosecution before the learned Trial Court,” Justice Sharma ordered..Sunil was arrested by the police in 2007 along with three others for preparing a dacoity. The police alleged that they had found five black masks as well as a country made revolver and other items.It was stated that though, five people were involved in the offence, the fifth person could never be traced..After considering the facts of the case and the proceeding before the trial court, Justice Sharma observed that even though the trial was for a heinous offence which attracts punishment for up to 10 years, the case was conducted in a most casual manner.The judge added that the accused did not have legal aid of a counsel in a real sense at any stage of the trial and even though an amicus curiae was appointed, it was at the stage when entire evidence had already been recorded.Even then, the amicus curiae appeared only twice, the Court said.“This Court notes with regret that even at the stage of final arguments, he was not present to defend the appellant who he had been asked to defend at the State’s expense.”.The bench also criticised the court below for its indifference and failure to provide legal aid to the accused.“Order sheets were written in the most indifferent manner by the learned Trial Court. At most places, the name of the counsel is not mentioned in the order sheets. The name, presence or absence of the counsel was not mentioned in any of the evidence recorded,” the High Court said.It added,“The trial court itself should have realized the duty cast on it to provide effective legal aid to an accused who is poor and marginalized and could not defend himself. The courts are the guardians of a person’s liberty and are duty bound by Constitution as well as their oath to ensure fair trial to an accused which is the constitutional goal set by the Indian Constitution itself.”The judge added that in criminal courts, lawyers are an absolute necessity and not a luxury and that is the reason vast sums of money are disbursed to establish legal aid centres and State Legal Services Authorities..Justice Sharma, therefore, acquitted Sunil of all charges and also ordered the Registrar General of the High Court to circulate a copy of her judgment to all the District Courts in Delhi and to also send it to the Director (Academics), Delhi Judicial Academy..Advocates Gayatri Nandwani and Mudita Sharda of Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC) appeared for Sunil.State was represented through Additional Public Prosecutor Naresh Kumar Chahar. .[Read Judgment]