Don’t resort to hasty trial, give accused fair chance to defend himself: Supreme Court

NEW DELHI: Sending a clear message to courts that they should not resort to “hasty trial” denying proper opportunity to the accused to defend himself, the Supreme Court has quashed a trial court order that awarded death sentence to an accused after wrapping up proceedings in 15 days in a case of rape and murder case of a three-month-old baby in MP. The court directed fresh trial in the case.

A bench of Justices B R Gavai, P S Narasimha and P K Mishra found fault in the trial proceedings and said it was not a fairhearing as the accused was not given sufficient time to defend himself in the case and he was also not given opportunity to cross-examine forensic experts whose report was relied upon by the court to convict him for the heinous offence.

“Denial of a fair trial is as much injustice to the accused as is to the victim and society,” the bench said.
SC: Overhasty trial vitiates process
Fair trial obviously would mean a trial before an impartial judge, a fair prosecutor, and the atmosphere of judicial calm. Fair trial means a trial in which bias or prejudice for or against the accused, witnesses, or the cause which is being tried is eliminated. It is inherent in the concept of due process of law, that condemnation should be rendered only after the trial in which the hearing is a real one, not sham or a mere farce and pretence,” the bench said.

“Since fair hearing requires an opportunity to preserve the process, it may be vitiated and violated by an overhasty, stage-managed, tailored and partisan trial. It is thus settled that a hasty trial in which proper and sufficient opportunity has not been provided to the accused to defend himself/herself would vitiate the trial as being meaningless & stage-managed. It is in violation of the principle of judicial calm,” it said.
The court noted various loopholes in the trial proceedings after reading and scrutiny of the order-sheet recorded by the trial court. It said the order-sheet manifested that the accused was not provided an opportunity to engage a counsel of his choice and all the witnesses examined by the prosecution were produced without issuing summons.
“…Therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and affirmed by the high court is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the trial court for de novo trial by affording proper opportunity to the appellant to defend himself,” it said.