Criminal appeals bySovaran Singh Prajapati concerning his conviction and death sentence for the double murder of his wife and daughter. The Court examines numerous procedural irregularities in the initial trial, including the absence of defense counsel during crucial stages, improper recording of the accused’s statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and unexplained delays. The ruling emphasizes the fundamental right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and various international human rights instruments, highlighting the duties of the trial court, appellate court, and prosecutor in ensuring a just process. Ultimately, due to these significant flaws, the Supreme Court sets aside the conviction and remands the case for a fresh trial.
(A) Penal Code, 1860, Section 302/ 201 – Murder – Remand back – Death sentence – Appreciation of evidence – Right of accuse of fair and speedy trial – Held that prosecutor in the present case seemed to have missed his duty as an officer of the Court – Change of counsel; belated appointment of Amicus Curiae/defence counsel; closure of opportunity to cross-examine; recording of evidence in the absence of defence counsel are all factors that the prosecutor, in their solemn duty ought to have objected to and brought to the notice of the Court, as contravening the principle of a fair trial – Statements of PW-1 and PW-2, i.e., the complainant and star witness respectively of the prosecution, were recorded in the absence of counsel for the accused – Opportunity for cross-examination also stood closed qua PW-1 which cannot be countenanced – If a trial is conducted in such a manner, the argument of prejudice will be available to the accused – Presence of the accused’s counsel at the time of recording of the statement is necessary – Frequent change in counsel as also the matter being reserved for judgment on the very day that a new counsel for the accused is brought on record, leads us to question the assistance given to the appellant by such lawyers – Held that the imposition of the death penalty here appears fraught with danger and should not be sustained – Sufficient time should be given to counsel to prepare the case and conduct the same on behalf of his client the manner in which the application to recall under Section 311 was filed and the statement of the accused in Section 313 Cr.P.C. was refused and recorded respectively, is rendered questionable in the sum total of circumstance – Both rights under these Sections are important for a trial to reach a just conclusion -Given that the counsel for the accused had been changed, an additional charge has been added against the accused and that it had taken over two years to record the evidence of the witnesses, taking the sum total of circumstances, such an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for recall of witnesses should have been allowed – All the incriminating circumstances were not put to the accused – General, sweeping questions were employed, which were only denied by him – Here, the role of the prosecutor also requires to be highlighted – It is incumbent upon them to aid the Court in preparing questions to be put to the accused – Over a trial period of 2.3 years, the matter was posted on 74 occasions and surprisingly, for a variety of reasons including the majority thereof being non-production of witnesses, was adjourned on 52 occasions approximately – In a matter of this nature, it cannot be stressed enough that the examination of witnesses and smooth conduct of trial is essential which obviously, was given a go-by – Judgments of the Trial Court convicting the appellant of the charged offence and awarding capital punishment and confirmation thereof by the High Court, with particulars as mentioned in Para 1 cannot be sustained and, as such, is liable to be set aside – The Appeals accordingly allowed – The matters remanded to the Trial Court and restored on the respective docket. The Trial Court shall proceed afresh from the stage of framing of charge.
(Para 21, 25, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34 and 35)
(B) Constitution of India, Article 21 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Chapter XXIII, Chapter XXIV and Chapter XXVIII – Constitution Law – Fair trial – Held that 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 – Principles as to the meaning and import of fair trial, can be illustratively deduced as follow:
(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.
(Para 8 and 10.6)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Chapter XXIII, Chapter XXIV and Chapter XXVIII – Criminal Procedure – Purpose of Trial – A trial is a fact-finding exercise wherein both parties, i.e., the prosecution and defence, after investigation by the competent authorities, present their versions of events and the role and duty of the Court to determine the truth – While undertaking such determination, the Court is not only to look at the evidence at hand but also ensure that all consideration balances the demand for justice and the rights of the accused – Statutory mechanism regarding a trial before a Court of Session is provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, under Chapter XVIII – The process and mode of taking and recording evidence have been provided for in Chapter XXIII – Chapter XXIV details the general provisions qua inquiries and trials – Herein, also provided is, the duty of the Court, in certain cases, to provide the person standing trial before it, with legal aid at the expense of the State – Also relevant here is Chapter XXVIII, which lays down the procedure for submission of a death sentence awarded by a Court of Session to the High Court for confirmation.
(Par 7 and 8)
(D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 311 – Criminal Procedure – Recall of witness – On the basis case law following principles as governing the application of Section 311 Cr.P.C. enumerated:
(a) The Section is divided into two parts, the first being directory with the use of the word ‘may’ and the latter being mandatory with the use of the word ‘shall’.
(b) The power of the Court is couched in the widest terms possible with no express limitation thereon.
(c) The exercise of such power is not only the prerogative but also the duty of the Court, in connection with a witness who may be considered absolutely necessary, in the interest of justice.
(d) This power is to be used both for the benefit of the prosecution and the defence. To summon a witness because it serves the case of one of the parties and not the other, would be improper.
(e) This power can be exercised at any stage of proceedings, i.e. enquiry, trial or any other.
(f) Power is to be exercised judiciously since wider the power, greater the requirement of the application of a judicial mind.
(g) If a witness so-called under this power, gives evidence against the complainant, the latter should be given an opportunity to cross-examination. This power arises not under Section 311 but under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
(h) A witness cannot be recalled by the use of this power to simply fill up a lacuna in the case of the prosecution.
(Para 30)
(E) Criminal jurisprudence – 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.
(Para 20)
Sovaran Singh Prajapati V. State Of Uttar Pradesh
Supreme Court: 2025 INSC 225: (DoJ 04-02-2025)
