Securing A Fair Trial Is Not A Solitary Responsibility: SC Sets Aside Death Sentence Of Man Accused Of Killing His Wife & Minor Daughter; Orders Retrial
The Apex Court took note of certain principles as to the meaning and import of fair trial.
The Supreme Court in a recent Judgment, has set aside the death sentence of a man who was accused of killing his wife and minor daughter.
The Court allowed Criminal Appeals filed by the accused against the Judgment of the Allahabad High Court by which capital punishment imposed on him was confirmed.
The three-Judge Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sanjay Karol, and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed, “… to secure a fair trial, is not a solitary responsibility. The Judge; the investigator; the investigating agency; and the counsel for either side, each have their own responsibility.”
The Bench took note of the following principles as to the meaning and import of fair trial –
(1) Fair and Just investigation is the starting point of the fair trial process.
(2) This process is a triangulation of the rights of the accused, the victim and the community that acts through the state and prosecuting agencies.
(3) Process of investigation and trial must be completed with promptitude.
(4) The trial Judge has to play an active role in the search for truth, which a trial, undoubtedly has to be.
(5) Bias of all nature, against the accused, the victim, the witnesses; or the cause of/at trial, has to be eliminated.
(6) The process of fair trial is to be done to maintain public confidence & uphold the majesty of law.
(7) The atmosphere in which a trial is to be conducted in a fair manner has to be in an atmosphere of ‘judicial calm’.
(8) Unfair prolongation of trial is an affront to the ideal of fair trial.
(9) The ideal of fair trial has protection in the Constitution and in the international legal framework, as a basic human right.
(10) The centripodal purpose of fair trial is to ensure that injustice is avoided as far as possible, but equally ‘fair trial’ is not leveraged to a point which would hinder the established procedure of Cr.P.C. In other words, the command of the Code cannot be ignored at the behest of the prosecution or defence, in the name of fair trial.
Senior Advocate Rajiv Shakdher appeared on behalf of the Appellant/Accused while Advocate Divyesh Pratap Singh appeared on behalf of the Respondent/State.
Brief Facts
As per the prosecution case, in 2014, the Appellant-accused returned home in an inebriated state, also carrying two bottles of liquor which he then consumed along with his father. Sometime later, a quarrel ensued between them which led to the accused allegedly slapping his father, who was, as a result, injured in his ear. Thereafter, he allegedly demanded money from his wife to procure more liquor which she denied. As such, he allegedly trashed, abused, and eventually killed her.
He also allegedly killed his daughter who was twelve years old and resultantly, an FIR was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Trial Court convicted the accused of having committed a double murder and imposed the sentence of death by hanging qua Section 302 IPC and seven-year imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC. The High Court confirmed his death sentence and hence, challenging the same, the accused was before the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, emphasised, “Fair and impartial administration of justice is a treasured right protected by various enactments of law including, first and foremost, the Constitution, which under Article 21 guarantees the Right to Fair Trial.”
The Court said that there is a duty of a Trial Court to be an active participant to seek out the truth, ensuring that a balance is struck between the role and responsibility of prosecution as also the rights of the accused.
“In a criminal trial, unless the law otherwise requires, the onus of proof never shifts. It is always on the prosecution. The job of the prosecution is to drive home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but at the same time, the prosecutor cannot forget that his first and foremost duty is, that of an officer of the Court. The prosecuting agency carries the role, primarily, till the time the matter enters the Court. They have a responsibility to examine all possible angles, collect all relevant evidence and then produce the same before the Court for determination of guilt or lack thereof”, it further noted.
The Court, therefore, concluded that the Judgments of the Trial Court convicting the Appellant of the charged offence and awarding capital punishment and confirmation thereof by the High Court, cannot be sustained.
“The matters are remanded to the Trial Court and restored on the respective docket. The Trial Court shall proceed afresh from the stage of framing of charge. Trial is expedited. It shall proceed, to the extent possible on a day-to-day basis. Parties shall appear before the Trial Court on 18th March 2025 and fully cooperate during trial. It is requested that the matter be heard and judgment delivered within a period of one year”, it also directed.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeals, set aside the death sentence, and remanded the case to the Trial Court.
Cause Title- Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 225)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Rajiv Shakdher, AOR Aditya Verma, Advocates Aatma Sudhir Kumar, Mangesh Naik, K Rigved Prasad, Parkhi Rai, and Samar Singh.
Respondent: AOR Shashank Shekhar Singh, Advocates Divyesh Pratap Singh, and Abhinav Singh.
