E-Paper
Fair trial in a criminal case not limited to accused solely: Supreme Court
Fair trial in a criminal case does not mean that it must only be fair to the accused, the Supreme Court has said, adding that the object of the criminal law is to ensure no guilty should go scot-free and no innocent should be punished.
Fair trial in a criminal case does not mean that it must only be fair to the accused, the Supreme Court has said, adding that the object of the criminal law is to ensure no guilty should go scot-free and no innocent should be punished.
The observations of a bench, comprising justices Vikram Nath and Rajesh Bindal, came in a judgment last week, as the court allowed the prosecution’s endevaour to prove certain electronic evidence in connection with the trial of 2008 serial bomb blasts in Bengaluru. One woman died and around 30 were injured after seven bombs went off across the city on July 25, 2008. One of the improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that exploded at a bus stop in south Bengaluru’s Madivala caused the death of the 32-year-old woman.
Setting aside the orders of the high court and the trial court that declined to take on record the authenticity certificate vis-a-vis the electronic evidence gathered during the investigation in the case, the bench held that permitting the prosecution to produce the certificate under section 65B of the evidence act was not resulting in any irreversible prejudice to the accused.
“A certificate under section 65-B of the Act, which is sought to be produced by the prosecution, is not evidence which has been created now. It meets the requirement of the law to prove a report on record. The accused will have full opportunity to rebut the evidence led by the prosecution,” said the bench, allowing the prosecution to prove a report concerning the electronic evidence.
The investigators seized laptops, pen drives, hard drives, memory cards and digital cameras, among others, that the prosecution had sought to prove during the trial by placing on record an authenticity certificate under the act.
“Fair trial in a criminal case does not mean that it should be fair to one of the parties. Rather, the object is that no guilty should go scot-free and no innocent should be punished...The object of the (criminal procedure) code is to arrive at truth,” underlined the bench, referring to section 311 of the CrPC that empowers courts to summon material witnesses at any stage of the proceedings to reach the just decision in the case.
Lamenting that the 2008 Bengaluru blasts shocked not only the city or the state but also the entire country, the court added that “in such terror attacks it is only the innocents who suffer” and that “the investigation had to be scientific” to bring guilty to book.
“In the case in hand, this exercise of power (under 311 of CrPC) is required to uphold the truth, as no prejudice as such is going to be caused to the accused,” said the bench, asking the trial court to let the prosecution recall a witness in its endeavour to prove the electronic evidence on record.
Arguing for the Karnataka government, additional advocate general Aman Panwar had earlier pointed out that what was sought to be produced by the prosecution was just a certificate of evidence already on record. The primary evidence in the form of electronic devices was already on record along with a forensic report, he had added.
Advocate Balaji Srinivasan, appearing for some of the accused in the case, however submitted that there was no error in the orders passed by the courts below and that the prosecution cannot be allowed to fill up the lacuna in the evidence by filing an application to recall a witness belatedly. He added that the accused will be deprived of their right to a fair trial if the prosecution’s plea is allowed.
The first lead behind the bombings came through in October 2008 when four young men from Kerala were shot dead by security forces in Kashmir as they were allegedly attempting to cross over to Pakistan to join a Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) training camp. The investigations revealed that the four slain youths were among a group of men from Kerala funded by the LeT to carry out blasts in Bengaluru.
As many as 32 persons were subsequently arrested by police and agencies, including prime accused T Naseer and his associate Shafas Shamsuddin, who had escaped to Bangladesh. After their arrest, Bengaluru Police in December 2009 said in a statement: “The Bangalore city serial blasts were carried out with the financial assistance and guidance of the LeT. Naseer and Shafas were assisted financially by the LeT during their stay in Bangladesh.”
One of the high-profile personalities arrested for the conspiracy to execute the Bengaluru bombings is firebrand Kerala political leader Abdul Nasser Madani.
