Supreme Court acquits death row convict; urges trial courts to appoint experienced advocates as legal aid counsel

A man convicted and sentenced to death by the trial court for killing his wife and four minor daughters was recently acquitted by the Supreme Court on the ground that the investigation was done hastily and the cross-examination of witnesses conducted by the legal aid counsel for the accused was below average [Ramanand vs State of Uttar Pradesh]..A Bench of Chief Justice of India Uday Umesh Lalit and Justices S Ravindra Bhat and JB Pardiwala urged the trial courts to appoint experienced lawyers as legal aid counsel, especially in matters involving serious offences."This case provides us an opportunity to remind the learned District and Sessions Judges across the country conducting sessions trials, more particularly relating to serious offences involving severe sentences, to appoint experienced lawyers who had conducted such cases in the past. It is desirable that in such cases senior advocate practicing in the trial court shall be requested to conduct the case himself or herself on behalf of the undefended accused or at least provide good guidance to the advocate who is appointed as amicus curiae or an advocate from the legal aid panel to defend the case of the accused persons," the Court said.It emphasised that Articles 21, 22, 39A of the Constitution and Section 304 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) outlines the importance of quality of legal aid for accused towards a fair trial. Hence, trial courts should not resort to patronising raw entrants to the bar by appointing them legal aid counsel in complex cases, the Court opined..The top court was hearing an appeal against an Allahabad High Court order that had upheld the conviction and death sentence of one Ramanand alias Nandlal Bharti, accused of killing his wife and four children when they were sleeping.The prosecution case was that the accused had an extra-marital affair with another woman and wanted to marry her. Since his wife was opposed to the same, he eliminated her and his four minor daughters. The trial court had convicted the appellant based on extra-judicial confessions, a strong motive, and a false explanation and unnatural conduct on his part.The top court at the outset noted that in the absence of eye-witnesses, the case was one based entirely on circumstantial evidence. After analysing the elements that the trial court relied on, the Bench concluded that the circumstances relating to making the extra-judicial confession and discovery of weapon could not be established. "The fact that we have ruled out the circumstances relating to the making of an extra judicial confession and the discovery of the weapon of offence as not having been established, the chain of circumstantial evidence snaps so badly that to consider any other circumstance, even like motive, would not be necessary," the Court said. The Court conceded that the offence was gruesome and one revolting human conscience but that alone cannot be a ground to convict the accused in the absence of evidence."Though the offence is gruesome and revolts human conscience, an accused can be convicted only on legal evidence and if only a chain of circumstantial evidence has been so forged as to rule out the possibility of any other reasonable hypothesis excepting the guilt of the accused," the Court underscored.Regarding the legal aid received by the accused, the top court noted that the accused was provided with legal aid counsel since he might not have been able to afford a good and experienced trial lawyer to defend himself. Regarding the arguments made by the legal aid counsel at the trial, the apex court noted that the cross-examination of every witness was below average."Questions which the defence counsel was supposed to put to the prosecution witnesses were put without realising or understanding the legal implications of the answers to such questions, more particularly, when they were not necessary. The defence counsel remained oblivious of the position of law that suggestions made to the witnesses by the defence the (sic) answers to those are binding to (sic) the accused," the judgment said.The judges made clear that it is the duty of the state to ensure that the legal aid counsel provided is not merely for namesake but one who performs to the best of their abilities." ... a threshold level of competence and due diligence in the discharge of his duties as a defence counsel would certainly be the constitutional guaranteed expectation. The presence of counsel on record means effective, genuine and faithful presence and not a mere farcical, sham or a virtual presence that is illusory, if not fraudulent," the bench underscored.The top court relied on its decision in Ranchod Mathur Wasava vs State of Gujarat to observe that extreme poverty should never be a ground for denying fair trial or justice. "Therefore, particular attention should be paid to appoint competent advocates, equal to handling the complex cases, not patronising gestures to raw entrants to the Bar. Sufficient time and complete papers should also be made available to the advocate chosen so that he may serve the cause of justice with all the ability at his command, and the accused also may feel confident that his counsel chosen by the court has had adequate time and material to defend him properly.".In view of the above, the Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused..Advocate Adarsh Upadhyay appeare for the Uttar Pradesh government. Senior Advocate S Niranjan Reddy appeared for the appellant. [Read Judgment]