“Criminal Trial Is Not IPL T20 Match”: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Rape Conviction As Defence Counsel Not Granted Reasonable Time For Preparation
Case: Khudia @ Khudiram Tudu v. State of Odisha
Coram: Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo
Case No.: JCRLA No. 76 of 2019
Court Observation: Engaging a new State Defence Counsel without providing him police papers and just asking him to inspect the case record and to cross-examine the victim and also taking consent from him to conclude the cross-examination on that day itself, in my humble view, is a gross illegality and the accused has been seriously prejudiced by such action of the trial Court.
“The engagement of State defence counsel in the trial Court should not be a mere compliance of provisions of law or an empty formality. It must not be a sham or an eye-wash but with all intent, purpose and sincerity, the lawyer must conduct the case of the accused.”
“If the conducting counsel engaged for an accused appears to be superfluous and there is real contest, right to fair trial would be denied. It is the duty of the Court while appointing the State defence counsel to supply him all relevant papers and to give sufficient time to him for preparing the defence, otherwise such defence would only be a farce without its real purpose,”
“Not ensuring the reasonable and diligent representation by counsel or pleader to the accused would not relieve the State of its obligation under section 304(1) Cr.P.C. and could not pass the test of fairness which every action of the State must withstand in keeping with the obligation under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution”
Previous Posts
Keywords
Criminal Trial
