"Ensuring Fair Trial: Patna High Court Sets Aside Death Sentence Due to Procedural Lapses"

 

Introduction

The present analysis focuses on a significant judgment delivered by the High Court of Judicature at Patna on 16th August 2022. The case comprises Death Reference No.1 of 2022 arising from Mahila P.S. Case No. 137 of 2021, filed in the Araria District, Bihar, and the associated Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 203 of 2022. The accused, Md. Major @ Mejar, was convicted by the Special Judge (POCSO), Araria, for offences under Section 376AB of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Prevention of Atrocities Act).

The trial court sentenced the accused to death for committing the offence under Section 376AB of the IPC, along with life imprisonment under Section 3(2)(v) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act and imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000. No separate sentence was given under Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

Factual Background

The prosecution alleged that on 1st December 2021, after 6:00 PM, the accused, Md. Major, committed a heinous act of penetrative sexual assault on a seven-year-old female child (PW 2) in the vicinity of her house at Majrahi Chakra, Ward No.4, under Bhargama Police Station, District Araria. The accused was a neighbor who frequently visited the prosecuting party’s house.

On the day of the incident, the accused lured the victim by asking her for water and then forcefully took her to a nearby field, where he committed the offence. The child was bleeding due to the assault and was threatened by the accused to keep silent. After the child returned home, she narrated the incident to her mother (PW 1) and later to her grandfather (PW 4) when he returned home.

The incident was reported to the police the next day and a formal First Information Report (FIR) was registered on 2nd December 2021 under various sections of the IPC, POCSO Act, and the Prevention of Atrocities Act. Subsequent investigation included medical examination of the victim, recording of statements, and seizure of the bloodstained clothes of the victim.

Trial Court Proceedings and Judgment

The Special Judge (POCSO), Araria, conducted the trial in an expeditious manner due to the serious nature of the crime. The court relied on the depositions of prosecution witnesses, including the victim, her mother, her grandfather, medical officers, and investigating officers. Despite the accused’s plea of alibi and false implication, the trial court concluded the proceedings within a very short period, resulting in the conviction and sentencing of the accused.

The defence alleged that the trial court’s haste in conducting the proceedings violated principles of natural justice and the right to a fair trial, as the accused was not granted sufficient time to prepare his case or present evidence in his defense.

Arguments Raised Before the High Court

The defence raised several contentions before the High Court:

1. The trial was conducted in undue haste, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.
2. The accused was not given adequate time to consult with his advocate and prepare his defense.
3. The trial court did not allow the accused a fair opportunity to present evidence supporting his alibi.
4. The proceedings were flawed due to lack of compliance with essential procedural safeguards as mandated under the Cr.P.C.

The prosecution, on the other hand, argued that the accused was a habitual offender and exerted pressure on the victim’s family. The Additional Public Prosecutor emphasized that the trial was conducted according to legal procedures mandated under Section 309 of the Cr.P.C. and Section 35 of the POCSO Act.

Observations of the High Court

The High Court, while examining the proceedings of the trial court, noted the following:

1. Lack of Proper Time for Defense: The accused was not given adequate time to prepare his defense, contrary to the principles of natural justice.
2. Flawed Trial Procedure: Recording of prosecution witnesses’ statements on the same day as framing of charges deprived the accused of a real opportunity to challenge the evidence.
3. Denial of Right to Present Defense Evidence: The trial court denied the accused the opportunity to adduce defense evidence despite requests for adjournment.
4. Violation of Procedural Safeguards: The court observed that the trial court’s insistence on expeditious disposal compromised fairness and objectivity.

Judgment of the High Court

The High Court highlighted that adherence to the principles of natural justice is paramount, especially when the punishment involves a death sentence. The court acknowledged that the trial was not conducted in accordance with procedural safeguards mandated under Sections 207, 226, 227, and 230 of the Cr.P.C.

The High Court ruled that the trial court’s undue haste to conclude the proceedings amounted to denial of fair trial, thus violating the accused’s constitutional rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. Consequently, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and remanded the matter for a fresh trial in accordance with law.

Conclusion

This case underscores the importance of ensuring that trials, especially those involving capital punishment, adhere strictly to principles of natural justice. The High Court’s decision reinforces the necessity of providing adequate opportunities to the accused to present their defense and emphasizes the need for judicial procedures to be conducted with fairness, impartiality, and adherence to the established legal framework.

Read the full judgement Below;

NSMyMDMjMjAyMiMxI04=-Flwrt7bnYPY=