Prolonged Trial In Custodial Matters Violates Constitutional Right To A Fair Trial: Kerala High Court Acquits Accused After 14 Years In Custody

The Court was hearing a criminal appeal filed by the accused challenging his conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court for offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, arising out of an incident of 2011.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K. V. Jayakumar, while stating that the Apex Court has time and again emphasised the need for expeditious trial of custodial cases, held: “the finding of guilt, conviction and sentence arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge are liable to be set aside. The alleged crime was committed on 18.09.2011. The accused remained in judicial custody for about fourteen years during the investigation, inquiry, trial and during the pendency of this appeal. Therefore, we feel that a direction to conduct a ‘denovo trial’ in this matter may not be just, fair and proper”.

Background

The appellant was prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. After completion of the investigation, the case was committed to the Court of Session, and charges were framed.

Despite the grant of bail at an early stage, the appellant remained in judicial custody for a prolonged period. The trial proceeded intermittently over several years, with frequent adjournments, transfers between courts, and repeated rescheduling.

During substantial portions of the trial, the appellant was not represented by counsel of his choice or by an effective legal aid counsel. Several material prosecution witnesses were examined either when the appellant was unrepresented or even in his absence. Ultimately, the Sessions Court convicted the appellant in October 2019 and sentenced him to imprisonment for life, leading to the present appeal.

Court’s Observation

The High Court undertook a detailed examination of the order sheets and trial proceedings and found multiple serious irregularities that cumulatively vitiated the trial.

The Bench reiterated that the right to a fair trial is an integral facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and that Articles 21, 22, and 39A cast a corresponding duty on courts to ensure that an accused is afforded effective legal representation at all material stages of a criminal trial.

The Court noted that, despite repeated opportunities, the appellant was left to cross-examine crucial prosecution witnesses himself, even though he was a layperson with no legal expertise. The Court held that such a course caused grave prejudice to the defence and amounted to a denial of meaningful legal assistance.

The Bench further found that several prosecution witnesses were examined in the absence of the accused, in direct violation of Section 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which mandates that evidence must ordinarily be recorded in the presence of the accused. It was also noticed that on multiple occasions, witnesses were examined when even the Public Prosecutor was absent, with the trial judge herself conducting the chief-examination.

The Court observed that while a judge is empowered under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to put questions to witnesses to elicit the truth, it is impermissible for the court to assume the role of the Public Prosecutor. Such a course, the Bench held, undermines the fairness and neutrality of the trial.

Turning to the manner in which the trial was prolonged, the Court referred to Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the consistent emphasis by the Supreme Court that Sessions trials, particularly custodial cases, must proceed de die in diem. The Court further reiterated the principle that Sessions cases should not be tried piecemeal, and that adjournments can be granted only for the strongest reasons and for the shortest possible duration.

“It is most expedient that the trial before the Court of Session should proceed and be dealt with continuously from its inception to its finish. Not only will it result in expedition, it will also result in the elimination of manoeuvre and mischief. It will be in the interest of both the prosecution and the defence that the trial proceeds from day-to-day. It is necessary to realise that Sessions cases must not be tried piecemeal”, the Bench reaffirmed.

The Bench found that after framing of charges, the trial dragged on for nearly five years, with the case being adjourned over a hundred times. It noted that on several occasions adjournments were granted on the ground of “pressure of other targeted cases,” even though the appellant was in custody throughout.

Conclusion

The High Court concluded that the appellant was denied a fair trial due to a combination of factors, including lack of effective legal representation, examination of witnesses in his absence, assumption of prosecutorial functions by the trial court, and an inordinately prolonged, piecemeal trial conducted in violation of Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Considering that the appellant had remained in judicial custody for about fourteen years and that a de novo trial at this stage would not be just or proper, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. The fine paid was ordered to be refunded.

The Court also directed that a copy of the judgment be forwarded to the Director of the Kerala Judicial Academy for guidance to Sessions Judges, to prevent such lapses from recurring in the future.

Cause Title: Babu C.G. S/o Gopalan v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2026:KER:1503)

Appearances

Appellant: V. Vijitha, Advocate

Respondent: Neema T. V., Government Pleader

Click here to read/download Judgment