Accused Effectively Deprived Of Defence; Denied Legal Assistance: Telangana HC Sets Aside Conviction In Dowry & Murder Case
The Telangana High Court partly allowed a Criminal Appeal of an accused filed against the Judgment of conviction.
The Telangana High Court set aside the conviction of an accused man in dowry and murder case and remanded the case to the Sessions Judge for a fresh de novo trial.
The Court was dealing with a Criminal Appeal filed by the accused, challenging the Judgment of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge.
A Division Bench of Justice P. Sam Koshy and Justice Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao observed, “… from the plain reading of the depositions and the manner in which the witnesses were let-off without there being effective cross examination, coupled with the fact that the appellant was not represented effectively by the Counsel on any of the dates of hearing, this Bench has no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that the appellant has been substantively and effectively deprived of an effective defence and also has been denied of an effective legal assistance during trial.”
Advocate Y. Soma Srinath Reddy appeared for the Appellant/Accused while Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Shalini Saxena appeared for the Respondent/State.
Brief Facts
The Appellant-accused was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal, for the offences under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 302 of the IPC, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (DP Act). He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 5 years along with a fine of Rs. 15,000/- with default stipulation. As per the prosecution case, a Complaint was filed by the father of the deceased (accused’s wife) alleging that the accused physically tortured and assaulted his daughter, leading to her death.
The prosecution examined 13 witnesses and exhibited 11 documents. The defence did not present any witnesses or documents. The Appellant's statement was recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Thereafter, the Trial Court found the accused guilty of the aforesaid offences. Hence, the accused was before the High Court, challenging his conviction.
Reasoning
The High Court in the above context of the case, said, “… the question to be considered by this Bench in this appeal is “whether upon the trial getting vitiated due to legal assistance not being provided to the appellant, would it be a case where the appeal itself need to be allowed?” or “whether it would be a case where the matter needs to be remanded back to the Trial Court?”
The Court further took note of the Judgment in the case of Ashok v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) in which the Apex Court had completely allowed the Appeal and had set aside the conviction and ordered for release of the accused.
“… in the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok (supra), there is no reference of the three Judge Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Hussain alias Zulfikar Ali vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (larger Bench) dated 31.08.2012. The case of Ashok (supra) was dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on an entirely different factual situation where it was found that the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. to be highly improbable and inadequate, coupled with the fact that the accused was not provided with any legal aid in his defence”, it noted.
The Court added that the larger Bench decision of the Supreme Court was primarily on the terms of reference of whether the matter under such circumstances where admittedly the trial is vitiated has to be remanded back for a de novo trial or not.
“In view of the fact that the larger Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Hussain alias Zulfikar Ali vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (larger Bench) dated 31.08.2012, being precisely on the question of law of whether the matter requires a remission or the conviction being set aside, we are also inclined to take the view that has been taken by the larger Bench for the reason of it being pin-pointedly decided on the said issue itself”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the Appeal, set aside the conviction of the accused, and remanded the case to the Sessions Judge for a fresh de novo trial.
Cause Title- Maloth Ravi v. The State of Telangana
