[ad_1]
More than four years after a man was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for strangling his wife, the Delhi High Court has remanded the matter back to the trial court for cross-examination of more than a dozen prosecution witnesses, as the accused was not represented by a lawyer during the substantial part of his trial.
“This Court is of the considered opinion that there has been a grave miscarriage of justice to the appellant when number of witnesses were examined when the appellant was not represented by a counsel and then when the legal aid counsel who was present in the Court was appointed on the same day was asked to cross- examine the witnesses,” said the division bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Anish Dayal in a verdict.
Setting aside the conviction and order on sentence against the accused, the court said the Additional Sessions Judge will follow due process of law and will record the statement of the accused under Section 313 CrPC if required and also permit leading the defence evidence if so required.
“The case be listed before the learned Trial Court on 26th September, 2022, when Superintendent Tihar Jail will produce the appellant before the learned Trial Court. Learned Trial Court is requested to expedite the trial and conclude the same preferably within four months,” said the court.
The accused, Narender alias Lala, has also been granted liberty to file an application seeking bail as per law before the trial court. The then District and Sessions Judge Rajnish Bhatnagar on March 20, 2018, had convicted the accused, saying the prosecution has been able to prove the accused had the motive to kill his wife, Anju, who was lastly seen in his company in their matrimonial home.
In an appeal before the High Court, Narender’s counsel argued that trial in the absence of a lawyer has seriously prejudiced him and sought recalling of all prosecution witnesses to ensure a fair trial. The division bench said a perusal of the trial court record reveals that the accused was represented by a lawyer at the stage of arguments on charge and till Prosecution Witness (PW)-8 was recorded.
“However, at the time when PW-9 to PW-18 were recorded from 17th November, 2017, the appellant was not represented by the counsel and thus these witnesses were examined with opportunity to the accused himself to cross-examine the said witnesses,” said the court.
It further said that thereafter on December 11, 2017, another counsel from legal aid was assigned the case and on the same date, PW-20, PW-21 and PW-22 were examined and discharged. The court added since the counsel had been appointed on that day itself, there was no cross-examination of the three witnesses.
“However, on the next date, PW-19 was cross-examined by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant provided through legal aid to the appellant and thus PW-19 was cross-examined but she failed to cross-examine PW-23 and PW- 24. Though on a subsequent date, cross-examination of PW-25 and PW-29 was duly carried out,” reads the order.
The court said the manner in which the trial was conducted, there was a serious denial of fair trial to the accused and he is required to be given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses which were examined in his lawyer’s absence or on the same day when he was provided the legal aid.
The case dates back to September 2016 when the Mangolpuri police station was informed that a woman brought to the hospital by her husband has been declared ‘brought dead’. The post-mortem showed that the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation.
[ad_2]
Source link