Date of the Judgment: 17 May 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 448
Judges: M.M. Sundresh, J., S.V.N. Bhatti, J.
Can a trial be considered fair if the accused is not given adequate opportunity to defend themselves? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving serious allegations under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards to ensure a fair trial, highlighting that a hurried trial can lead to a miscarriage of justice. This judgment underscores the necessity of balancing the rights of the accused, the victim, and society at large, while also calling for a comprehensive sentencing policy to avoid disparities. The bench was composed of Justices M.M. Sundresh and S.V.N. Bhatti.
Case Background
The case originated from an FIR (First Information Report) registered on December 2, 2021, concerning an incident that occurred on December 1, 2021. The complainant, the mother of the victim, alleged that the accused committed rape of a minor girl. The case was registered under Section 376AB of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The accused was arrested on December 12, 2021, and produced before the Judicial Magistrate on December 13, 2021, where he was remanded to judicial custody. Subsequent extensions of remand were conducted through video conferencing on December 24, 2021, and January 5, 2022. The charge sheet was filed on January 12, 2022, for the aforementioned offenses. On January 15, 2022, the accused was again produced through video conferencing.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| December 1, 2021 | Incident of alleged rape occurred. |
| December 2, 2021 | FIR registered by the victim’s mother. |
| December 12, 2021 | Accused was arrested. |
| December 13, 2021 | Accused produced before the Judicial Magistrate and remanded to judicial custody. |
| December 24, 2021 | Remand extended through video conferencing. |
| January 5, 2022 | Remand further extended through video conferencing. |
| January 12, 2022 | Charge sheet filed. |
| January 15, 2022 | Accused produced through video conferencing. |
| January 20, 2022 | Cognizance taken of the charge sheet without FSL report. |
| January 22, 2022 | Charges framed and documents supplied to the accused’s counsel, arguments heard, and prosecution witnesses summoned. |
| January 24, 2022 | Remaining witnesses, including the Investigating Officer, examined. |
| January 25, 2022 | Accused questioned under Section 313 CrPC, defense plea for time rejected, arguments concluded, and judgment delivered. |
| January 27, 2022 | Case posted for sentencing, death sentence imposed. |
| May 17, 2024 | Supreme Court judgment delivered. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court took cognizance of the charge sheet on January 20, 2022, without waiting for the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report. The court directed the prosecutor to ensure the accused’s presence via video conferencing. The accused, unable to engage a lawyer, was provided with documents on January 22, 2022, without adequate time for review or consultation with counsel. The Trial Court proceeded to frame charges on the same day, and ordered the summoning of prosecution witnesses.
The Trial Court also allowed an application by the Investigating Officer to record the evidence of four witnesses in a single day, citing confidential information about pressure from the accused’s family. This was done without notice to the accused or his counsel, and without considering the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018. The statements of witnesses were recorded through video conferencing, disregarding the Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020.
On January 24, 2022, the remaining witnesses, including the Investigating Officer, were examined, with no clear record of the accused’s presence. The defense’s request for a one-week deferment was rejected. The accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, via video conferencing. Despite repeated requests, the court granted only a one-day adjournment. On January 25, 2022, the defense’s application for time to produce witnesses was denied, and the court proceeded with arguments, concluding at 6:30 PM, and delivered the 27-page judgment at 7:00 PM. The copies of the witness statements were not provided to the defense counsel.
The Trial Court imposed a death sentence on January 27, 2022. The Patna High Court, upon reviewing the records, found significant non-compliance with Sections 207, 226, 227, and 230 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The High Court set aside the conviction and sentence, ordering a de novo (fresh) trial, and disapproved of the Trial Court’s approach.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court referred to several key legal provisions and rules:
- Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020: These rules govern the use of video conferencing in court proceedings. Rule 6 outlines the application process for video conferencing, requiring discussion with the other party and court approval. Rule 8 mandates that undertrial prisoners have private consultation with counsel before, during, and after video conferencing. Rule 11 specifies that judicial remand or recording of statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, through video conferencing should only occur in exceptional circumstances with reasons recorded in writing.
- Witness Protection Scheme, 2018: This scheme aims to protect witnesses from fear or favor, providing a mechanism for witnesses to seek protection through a competent authority.
- Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898: This section mandates that the officer-in-charge of a police station must provide the accused with copies of the police report, First Information Report, and other relevant documents.
- Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This provision requires the Magistrate to furnish the accused with copies of the police report, FIR, statements of witnesses, confessions, and other relevant documents free of cost.
- Section 208 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section mandates the Magistrate to provide copies of statements and documents to the accused in cases instituted otherwise than on a police report and triable by the Court of Session.
- Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with the discharge of the accused if there is insufficient ground to proceed against them, requiring a meaningful hearing.
- Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section outlines the procedure for framing charges, requiring the judge to read and explain the charges to the accused.
- Section 230 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with the date for prosecution evidence, mandating the court to fix a date for the examination of witnesses.
- Section 231 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section outlines the procedure for evidence for prosecution, allowing cross-examination of witnesses.
- Section 233 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with entering upon defence, wherein the accused will be called upon to adduce evidence.
- Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section emphasizes the continuation of the trial and the power to postpone or adjourn proceedings.
- Section 354 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section outlines the language and contents of a judgment, requiring the judgment to specify the offense and reasons for the decision.
- Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with the release of offenders on probation of good conduct or after admonition.
- Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: This section deals with the findings or sentences when reversible by reason of error, omission, or irregularity.
- Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958: This section deals with the power of the court to release certain offenders after admonition.
- Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958: This section deals with the power of the court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct.
- Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958: This section deals with restrictions on imprisonment of offenders under twenty-one years of age.
Arguments
Submissions on behalf of the Appellant (Informant and Trial Judge):
- The procedure established by law was followed, keeping in mind the requirements of Section 309 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
- Even if there was a procedural flaw, Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, would apply, and there was no need for remittal.
- The counsel for the accused did not raise serious objections during the trial.
- The Trial Judge discharged his judicial function, and any action without hearing him is contrary to law.
- The accused had antecedents, and the Trial Court exercised due caution.
- No witness was produced on behalf of the defense.
Submissions on behalf of the Respondent (High Court and Accused):
- There were serious procedural violations.
- Prejudice was sufficiently demonstrated before the court.
- It was impossible for a Judge to deliver the judgment in such a short time.
- No opportunity was given to the accused at every stage of the trial.
- The case is a clear example of “justice hurried is justice buried.”
- There is no question of giving an opportunity to the judicial officer as no action is pending against him.
- The accused is still under incarceration.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Appellant) | Sub-Submissions (Respondent) |
|---|---|---|
| Procedural Compliance |
|
|
| Fair Trial |
|
|
| Sentencing |
|
|
| Opportunity to be Heard |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issues addressed by the Court were:
- Whether the Trial Court followed the mandatory procedures as laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and other relevant laws to ensure a fair trial.
- Whether the High Court was justified in ordering a de novo trial due to procedural lapses.
- Whether the observations made by the High Court against the Trial Judge were warranted.
- Whether the Supreme Court should intervene in the administrative actions taken against the Trial Judge.
- Whether there is a need for a comprehensive sentencing policy in India.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the Trial Court followed the mandatory procedures? | The Supreme Court found that the Trial Court did not follow mandatory procedures, highlighting several procedural lapses. |
| Whether the High Court was justified in ordering a de novo trial? | The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to order a de novo trial, stating that the procedural violations were serious enough to warrant a fresh trial. |
| Whether the observations made by the High Court against the Trial Judge were warranted? | The Supreme Court did not explicitly comment on the observations but noted that the Trial Judge was fortunate that no action was taken against him. |
| Whether the Supreme Court should intervene in the administrative actions taken against the Trial Judge? | The Supreme Court declined to intervene in the administrative actions, stating it was an administrative matter and the Trial Judge could approach the High Court on the administrative side. |
| Whether there is a need for a comprehensive sentencing policy in India? | The Supreme Court emphasized the need for a comprehensive sentencing policy and directed the Government of India to file an affidavit on the feasibility of introducing such a policy. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| J. Jayalalithaa v. State of Karnataka, (2014) 2 SCC 401 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to emphasize the importance of a fair trial. | Fair trial includes the interest of the accused, the victim and of the society. |
| Rattiram v. State of M.P., (2012) 4 SCC 516 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to highlight that a fair and impartial trial is essential. | A fair trial should be conducted to ostracise injustice, prejudice, dishonesty and favouritism. |
| Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat, (2004) 4 SCC 158 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to underscore the court’s duty to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice. | Courts have an overriding duty to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice. |
| Mohd. Hussain v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2012) 9 SCC 408 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to differentiate between the right to speedy trial and the right to a fair trial. | Speedy trial secures rights to an accused but it does not preclude the rights of public justice. |
| State of Haryana v. Ram Mehar, (2016) 8 SCC 762 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to emphasize that a fair trial is not a vague idea but a concrete phenomenon. | Fair trial requires fairness to the accused, the victim and the collective at large. |
| Talab Haji Hussain v. Madhukar Purshottam Mondkar, 1958 SCR 1226 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to highlight that the primary object of criminal procedure is to ensure a fair trial. | A fair trial must be fair to the accused and must also be fair to the prosecution. |
| Naresh Kumar Yadav v. Ravindra Kumar, (2008) 1 SCC 632 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to explain that the purpose of supplying documents is to enable the accused to defend himself properly. | Non-supply of copies is not necessarily prejudicial to the accused. |
| P. Gopalkrishnan v. State of Kerala, (2020) 9 SCC 161 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to affirm that furnishing of documents is a facet of the right to a fair trial. | All documents that the prosecution proposes to use against the accused must be furnished to the accused. |
| Anokhilal v. State of M.P., (2019) 20 SCC 196 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to emphasize that the hearing for framing charges must be meaningful. | The trial court ought to have adjourned the matter to allow the Amicus Curiae sufficient time to prepare. |
| Kewal Krishan v. Suraj Bhan, 1980 (Supp) SCC 499 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to highlight the importance of Section 227 of the CrPC in saving the accused from prolonged harassment. | Section 227 is a beneficent provision to save the accused from prolonged harassment. |
| Hardeep Singh v. State Of Punjab, (2014) 3 SCC 92 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to explain the court’s role at the stage of framing charges. | The court has to see whether the material reasonably connects the accused with the offense. |
| Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to outline the principles for exercising jurisdiction under Sections 227 and 228 of the CrPC. | The court has the power to sift and weigh evidence to determine if a prima facie case exists. |
| Mohd. Ajmal Amir Kasab v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 9 SCC 1 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to affirm the right to legal aid at the first production before a Magistrate. | It is the duty of the Magistrate to make the accused fully aware of their right to consult a lawyer. |
| State of Kerala v. Rasheed, (2019) 13 SCC 297 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to provide guidelines for the exercise of discretion under Section 231(2) CrPC. | A balance must be struck between the rights of the accused and the prerogative of the prosecution. |
| State of UP v. Shambu Nath Singh (2001) 4 SCC 667 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to emphasize the importance of day-to-day trial proceedings. | Once the examination of witnesses has started, the court has to continue the trial from day to day. |
| State of M.P. v. Bhooraji, (2001) 7 SCC 679 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to explain the meaning of “failure of justice” in the context of Section 465 of the CrPC. | The superior court shall not quash proceedings unless an error has caused a “failure of justice”. |
| Darbara Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 476 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to explain that “failure of justice” is a pliable expression, and the court must find the truth. | “Failure of justice” is not only by unjust conviction but also by acquittal of the guilty. |
| Kottayya v. Emperor, AIR (34) 1947 Privy Council 67 | Privy Council | Cited to clarify the distinction between an illegality and an irregularity in a trial. | If the trial is conducted substantially in the manner prescribed by the Code, an irregularity can be cured. |
| Nasib Singh v. State of Punjab, (2022) 2 SCC 89 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to lay down the principles for ordering a retrial. | Retrial should be ordered only in exceptional circumstances to avert a miscarriage of justice. |
| Manoj v. State of M.P., (2023) 2 SCC 353 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to discuss the concept of “individualized, principled sentencing”. | Sentencing should be based on both the crime and the criminal, with consideration of whether reform is achievable. |
| Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of W.B., (1994) 2 SCC 220 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to emphasize the need for appropriate punishment that reflects public abhorrence of the crime. | Courts must consider the rights of the criminal, the victim, and society while imposing punishment. |
| Swamy Shraddananda (2) v. State of Karnataka, (2008) 13 SCC 767 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to highlight the lack of consistency in the sentencing process. | The question of death penalty is not free from subjective elements and depends on the personal predilection of the Judges. |
| Soman v. State of Kerala, (2013) 11 SCC 382 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to acknowledge the lack of sentencing guidelines in India. | There are no legislative or judicially laid down guidelines to assist the trial court in meting out just punishment. |
| Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar, AIR 2023 SUPREME COURT 5709 | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the appellant to argue for procedural compliance. | The Court did not find this case to be relevant to the facts of the present case. |
| Akil v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 7 SCC 125 | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the appellant to argue for procedural compliance. | The Court did not find this case to be relevant to the facts of the present case. |
| Sakshi v. Union of India, (2004) 5 SCC 518 | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the appellant to argue for procedural compliance. | The Court did not find this case to be relevant to the facts of the present case. |
| State of Maharashtra v. Mahesh Kariman Tirki, (2022) 10 SCC 207 | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the appellant to argue for procedural compliance. | The Court did not find this case to be relevant to the facts of the present case. |
| Pradeep S. Wodeyar v. State of Karnataka, (2021) 19 SCC 62 | Supreme Court of India | Cited by the appellant to argue for procedural compliance. | The Court did not find this case to be relevant to the facts of the present case. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that the procedure established by law was followed. | The Court rejected this submission, finding that there were serious procedural violations. |
| Appellant’s submission that Section 465 of the CrPC applies. | The Court held that the procedural lapses were substantial and constituted a failure of justice, thereby not applying Section 465. |
| Appellant’s submission that the counsel for the accused did not raise serious objections. | The Court noted that the lawyer for the defense cannot fight against the court and that the court has to follow a balanced approach. |
| Appellant’s submission that the Trial Judge discharged his judicial function. | The Court acknowledged this but emphasized that the judicial function must be discharged fairly, which was not done in this case. |
| Respondent’s submission that there were serious procedural violations. | The Court upheld this submission, finding that there were indeed serious procedural violations. |
| Respondent’s submission that it was impossible for a Judge to deliver the judgment in such a short time. | The Court agreed, noting that it was humanly impossible to deliver a 27-page judgment in half an hour. |
| Respondent’s submission that no opportunity was given to the accused at every stage of the trial. | The Court upheld this submission, finding that the accused was denied due opportunity at every stage. |
| Respondent’s submission that the case is a clear example of “justice hurried is justice buried.” | The Court agreed with this assessment. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court used the authorities to define and emphasize the importance of a fair trial, the rights of the accused, and the duties of the court.
- The Court also used the authorities to highlight the deficiencies in the present sentencing system and the need for a comprehensive sentencing policy.
- The Court did not find the authorities cited by the appellant relevant to the facts of the present case, as they did not address the extent of the procedural violations that occurred.
The Supreme Court held that the trial was not fair due to several procedural violations. The Court noted that the accused was not given adequate time to consult with his lawyer, the charges were framed hastily, and the witnesses’ statements were recorded without following due process. The Court also highlighted the lack of adherence to the Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020, and the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018.
The Court emphasized that a fair trial is not just a statutory right but also a human right, and any deviation from the established procedure can impact both the prosecution and the defense. The Court also underscored that a speedy trial should not compromise the fairness of the trial.
The Court observed that the Trial Court had acted in haste, and it was humanly impossible to deliver a 27-page judgment in such a short time. The Court also noted that the lawyer for the defense was not given a fair opportunity to present his case.
The Court noted that the trial court had failed to consider the provisions of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 before imposing the death sentence.
The Supreme Court also discussed the need for a comprehensive sentencing policy in India, highlighting the disparities in sentencing and the lack of a structured approach. The Court referred to the sentencing policies in countries like Canada, New Zealand, and the UK, which provide guidelines for judges to ensure consistency and fairness in sentencing.
The Court directed the Government of India, specifically the Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, to file an affidavit within six months on the feasibility of introducing a comprehensive sentencing policy and a report on the same.
The Court concluded by dismissing the appeal and upholding the High Court’s order for a de novo trial, emphasizing that the principle of ‘justice hurried is justice buried’ should never be forgotten.
Flowchart of Key Procedural Lapses
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Sunita Devi vs. State of Bihar serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards in criminal trials. The Court’s emphasis on a fair trial, the rights of the accused, and the need for a comprehensive sentencing policy underscores the necessity of a balanced approach in the administration of justice. The judgment also highlights the potential for miscarriage of justice when trials are conducted in haste and without due regard for established procedures. The Court’s directive to the Government of India to consider a comprehensive sentencing policy is a significant step towards ensuring consistency and fairness in the sentencing process. This case will undoubtedly influence future judicial proceedings and emphasize the need for judicial officers to be meticulous in following the law.