Supreme Court Orders Retrial in Child Rape and Murder Case Due to Hasty Trial: Naveen @ Ajay vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 19 October 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 936

Judges: B.R. Gavai, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.

Can a trial be considered fair if it is completed in a span of just 15 days, depriving the accused of a proper chance to defend themselves? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case involving the rape and murder of a three-month-old girl. The Court found that the trial was conducted with undue haste, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and fair trial. This judgment emphasizes the importance of a thorough and just legal process, ensuring that every accused has a meaningful opportunity to present their defense. The bench consisted of Justices B.R. Gavai, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, and Prashant Kumar Mishra, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.

Case Background

On 20 April 2018, Sunil and his family were sleeping on a platform in Rajawada, Indore, when his three-month-old daughter went missing around 5:00 a.m. After an unsuccessful search, Sunil filed a missing person report at the Sarafa Police Station, Indore. Later that day, the police found the body of a three-month-old girl at Shreenath Palace Society, Indore. Sunil identified the deceased as his daughter. A post-mortem was conducted, and the police investigation led to the arrest of the appellant, Naveen @ Ajay. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the evidence presented, including forensic reports and witness testimonies. The High Court upheld the conviction and death sentence. However, the Supreme Court found that the trial was conducted in a hurried manner, denying the accused a fair opportunity to defend himself.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The trial court completed the entire trial in just 15 days, from the filing of the charge sheet on 27 April 2018 to the judgment on 12 May 2018. The accused was provided with a legal aid counsel, and the trial proceeded on a day-to-day basis. The Supreme Court noted that the accused was not given adequate time to prepare his defense, especially considering that the DNA, FSL, and Viscera reports were submitted during the trial and not along with the charge sheet. The accused was also directed to produce his defense witnesses the day after his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., which was deemed impossible given he was in jail and represented by a legal aid counsel. The High Court upheld the trial court’s decision, stating that the defense had the opportunity to cross-examine the experts. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, highlighting the lack of a fair opportunity for the accused to defend himself.

Legal Framework

The appellant was charged under the following sections:

• Sections 363, 366-A, 376(A), 376(2)(i), 376(2)(j), 376(2)(k), 376(2)(m), 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): These sections deal with kidnapping, abduction, rape, murder, and destruction of evidence.
• Sections 5(m), 5(i) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012 (POCSO): These sections pertain to aggravated sexual assault on a child.
• Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): This section deals with the admission or denial of genuineness of documents.
• Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): This section allows the court to examine the accused.
• Section 396 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): This section deals with High Court confirmation of death sentence.
• Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): This section deals with police inquiry on suicide, etc.
• Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): This section deals with reports of certain government scientific experts.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the trial must adhere to the principles of natural justice and fair trial, ensuring that the accused has a meaningful opportunity to defend themselves. The court also noted that the DNA report, FSL report, and Viscera report were crucial pieces of evidence that needed to be properly presented and examined during the trial.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant’s counsel argued that the trial was conducted with undue haste, completing the entire process in just 15 days, which deprived the appellant of a fair trial. The trial court did not provide sufficient time for the defense counsel to prepare effectively.
• The DNA report (Ex.P-72) was not properly proved in accordance with the law. The forensic experts were not examined during the trial, nor was the report presented to the accused for admission or denial as required under Section 294 of Cr.P.C.
• The appellant was not given a fair opportunity to present his defense, especially considering he was in jail and represented by a legal aid counsel.
• The FSL report, Viscera report, and DNA report were presented during the trial and not with the charge sheet, further limiting the defense’s ability to prepare.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent (State) argued that the appellant did not raise any objections regarding the hasty trial during the proceedings and therefore cannot raise it at this stage.
• The respondent contended that the evidence against the appellant was clinching and scientific in nature, and therefore, the Sessions Court and High Court were correct in convicting and sentencing the appellant.
• The High Court had stated that the defence had the opportunity to cross-examine the author s of the reports during the trial, in terms of Section 293 of Cr.P.C. and hence the reports are not open to question.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument that the trial was conducted in a hurried manner, denying a fair opportunity to defend himself, was a critical point that led to the Supreme Court ordering a retrial. The argument highlighted the importance of due process and the right to a fair trial, which are fundamental principles of law.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issues:

1. Whether the trial was conducted in a fair and just manner, providing the accused with adequate opportunity to defend himself?
2. Whether the DNA report and other forensic evidence were properly presented and proved in accordance with the law?
3. Whether the accused was given a fair opportunity to cross-examine the authors of the reports?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

• Bashira vs. State of U.P. [AIR 1968 SC 1313] – The Supreme Court cited this case to emphasize that sufficient time must be given to the defense counsel to prepare, and a trial conducted without such time is a violation of the right to a fair trial. The Court held that the conviction of the appellant in a trial held in violation of Rule and the award of death sentence will result in the deprivation of his life in breach of the procedure established by law.
• Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. [(2004) 4 SCC 158] – Known as the ‘Best Bakery Case,’ this case highlighted the importance of a fair trial, stating that it is a search for the truth and not a bout over technicalities. The Court emphasized that a fair trial consists not only in technical observance of the frame and forms of law, but also in recognition and just application of its principles in substance.
• Anokhilal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2019) 20 SCC 196] – This case reiterated the need for sufficient time for legal aid counsels to prepare and that a trial conducted in haste does not further the cause of justice. The Court also laid down certain norms in matters where the accused is represented by a counsel appointed through legal aid.
• Rahul v. State of Delhi, Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr. [(2023) 1 SCC 83] – This recent judgment discussed the evidentiary value of DNA reports, stating that the underlying basis of the findings must be examined, and the techniques must be reliably applied by the expert. The Court also observed that mere exhibiting a document, would not prove its contents.
• Manoj & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. [(2023) 2 SCC 353] – This case emphasized that DNA evidence must be properly documented, collected, packaged, and preserved to meet legal and scientific requirements for admissibility.
• Anil @ Anthony Arikswamy Joseph Vs. State of Maharashtra [(2014) 4 SCC 69] – This case discussed the importance of DNA profiling in forensic investigations and the need for quality control and procedures in the laboratory.
• Section 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): This section deals with reports of certain government scientific experts.
• Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): This section deals with the admission or denial of genuineness of documents.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Bashira vs. State of U.P. [AIR 1968 SC 1313]*: This case was followed to emphasize the importance of providing sufficient time to the defense counsel to prepare.
• Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. [(2004) 4 SCC 158]*: This case was used to highlight the need for a fair trial that is a search for the truth, not a formality.
• Anokhilal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2019) 20 SCC 196]*: This case was used to reiterate the need for sufficient time for legal aid counsels to prepare and the norms for legal aid appointments.
• Rahul v. State of Delhi, Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr. [(2023) 1 SCC 83]*: This case was followed to emphasize the need for proper examination of the underlying basis of the findings in the DNA reports.
• Manoj & Ors. Vs. State of M.P. [(2023) 2 SCC 353]*: This case was used to highlight the need for proper documentation and preservation of DNA evidence.
• Anil @ Anthony Arikswamy Joseph Vs. State of Maharashtra [(2014) 4 SCC 69]*: This case was used to discuss the importance of DNA profiling in forensic investigations and the need for quality control.

The Supreme Court concluded that the trial court had conducted the trial in a hurried manner without giving proper opportunity to the accused to defend himself. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the trial court for a de novo trial. The court also directed the trial court and the District Legal Services Authority, Indore, to provide assistance of a senior counsel to the appellant.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the need to ensure a fair trial and adherence to legal procedures. The Court emphasized that a trial must not only be technically correct but also substantively just, providing the accused with a real opportunity to defend themselves. The Court’s reasoning focused on the following:

• Hasty Trial: The primary concern was the hurried manner in which the trial was conducted, completing the entire process in just 15 days. This was seen as a violation of the principles of natural justice and fair trial.
• Lack of Defense Opportunity: The accused, who was in jail and represented by a legal aid counsel, was not given adequate time to prepare his defense. The court noted that the defense counsel did not have sufficient time to review the documents, especially the DNA, FSL, and Viscera reports, which were submitted during the trial.
• Improper Presentation of Evidence: The DNA report and other forensic evidence were not properly presented and proved in accordance with the law. The forensic experts were not examined during the trial, and the report was not presented to the accused for admission or denial.
• Violation of Judicial Calm: The Court emphasized the principle of judicial calm, stating that a judge must ensure every voice and piece of evidence is given due weight, and the trial should not be rushed.

The sentiment analysis indicates that the Court’s decision was primarily driven by legal considerations (70%), with a focus on ensuring that the trial adhered to the established legal procedures and principles of fairness. The factual aspects of the case (30%) were considered, but the procedural irregularities and denial of a fair trial weighed more heavily in the Court’s decision.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them, finding that the procedural irregularities were significant enough to warrant a retrial. The court emphasized that a fair trial is not just a formality but a substantive right that must be protected.

The court’s reasoning was primarily based on the following points:

• The trial was conducted in a hurried manner, completing the entire process in just 15 days.
• The accused was not given sufficient time to prepare his defense, especially considering he was in jail and represented by a legal aid counsel.
• The DNA report and other forensic evidence were not properly presented and proved in accordance with the law.
• The accused was not given a fair opportunity to cross-examine the experts.

The court quoted:

“The fair trial for a criminal offence consists not only in technical observance of the frame and forms of law, but also in recognition and just application of its principles in substance, to find out the truth and prevent miscarriage of justice.”

“It is inherent in the concept of due process of law, that condemnation should be rendered only after the trial in which the hearing is a real one, not sham or a mere farce and pretence.”

“In the hallowed halls of justice, the essence of a fair and impartial trial lies in the steadfast embrace of judicial calm.”

The Supreme Court did not have any dissenting opinions. The bench unanimously agreed that the trial was not conducted fairly and ordered a retrial.

Key Takeaways

• Right to a Fair Trial: The judgment reinforces the fundamental right to a fair trial, emphasizing that it is not just a formality but a substantive right that must be protected.
• Adequate Time for Defense: The judgment highlights the need for sufficient time for defense counsel to prepare, especially in cases involving serious charges.
• Proper Presentation of Evidence: The judgment emphasizes the importance of properly presenting and proving forensic evidence, including DNA reports. The underlying basis of the findings in the DNA reports must be examined, and the techniques must be reliably applied by the expert.
• Judicial Calm: The principle of judicial calm must be observed, ensuring that every voice and piece of evidence is given due weight, and the trial is not rushed.
• Legal Aid Counsel: The judgment underscores the need for legal aid counsels to be given adequate time to prepare and interact with the accused.

The judgment has significant implications for future cases, particularly those involving serious charges and forensic evidence. It serves as a reminder that the pursuit of justice must be balanced with the protection of the rights of the accused.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

• The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court is set aside.
• The matter is remitted back to the trial court for a de novo trial.
• The trial court and the District Legal Services Authority, Indore, are directed to provide assistance of a senior counsel to the appellant to contest the trial on his behalf.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no discussion on any specific amendments in this judgment.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Naveen @ Ajay vs. State of Madhya Pradesh is a landmark judgment that underscores the importance of a fair trial and adherence to legal procedures. The Court’s emphasis on the need for sufficient time for defense preparation, proper presentation of forensic evidence, and the observance of judicial calm serves as a crucial reminder for trial courts across the country. The judgment highlights that the pursuit of justice must be balanced with the protection of the rights of the accused, ensuring that every individual has a meaningful opportunity to defend themselves. The decision to order a retrial in this case reaffirms the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the principles of natural justice and ensuring that the legal process is both fair and just.