SC cites haste in trial to set aside death penalty

A bench comprising justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta underscored the fundamental necessity of affording a fair defence to the accused, particularly in cases involving capital punishment

The Supreme Court has set aside the death penalty awarded to two men convicted of raping a minor, citing “undue haste” in the trial proceedings, while reinforcing the principles of fair trial and due process.

A bench comprising justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta underscored the fundamental necessity of affording a fair defence to the accused, particularly in cases involving capital punishment. (ANI PHOTO)

A bench comprising justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta underscored the fundamental necessity of affording a fair defence to the accused, particularly in cases involving capital punishment, as it lamented that the trial was concluded within two months, depriving the accused of an adequate opportunity to defend themselves.

“The instant case involves capital punishment and thus, providing a fair opportunity to the accused to defend himself is absolutely imperative and non-negotiable. The trial in the case at hand was concluded without providing appropriate opportunity of defending to the accused and within and within a period of less than two months from the date of registration of the case, which is reflective of undue haste,” held the bench in its January 16 judgment, which was released on Thursday evening.

The court found that the trial was conducted in a manner that compromised the accused’s ability to challenge the evidence against them, rendering the proceedings unjust.

While ensuring swift justice remains a priority, the ruling underscores that speed cannot come at the cost of fairness and procedural safeguards, especially in cases involving the death penalty.

Senior advocates Siddharth Aggarwal and Gopal Sankaranarayanan represented the two accused in the top court.

The case pertained to the alleged gang rape of a minor in June 2018, for which the trial court convicted the two accused to death. They were sentenced to death in August 2018 by the trial court. The Madhya Pradesh high court in September 2021 upheld the conviction and confirmed the capital punishment under Section 376D(b) of the Indian Penal Code that provides for death penalty for a gang rape on a girl under 12 years of age.

However, the Supreme Court found that the trial was conducted in an expedited manner that compromised procedural fairness. Citing its judgment in the Anokhilal case (2019), the bench reiterated that ensuring an accused has a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves is an integral part of criminal jurisprudence. The court stressed that even in cases requiring expeditious trials, procedural safeguards must not be disregarded.

The bench pointed out critical lapses in the handling of forensic evidence, particularly the DNA report, which formed the cornerstone of the prosecution’s case. The judgment noted that the DNA profiling report was exhibited in evidence through the testimony of a police officer, but none of the scientific experts involved in its preparation were examined. This, the court held, led to a failure of justice.

“The failure of the trial Court to ensure the deposition of the scientific experts while relying upon the DNA report has definitely led to the failure of justice, thereby vitiating the trial,” observed the court, allowing the accused’s plea for a complete set of laboratory documents and examination of expert witnesses, arguing that discrepancies in the DNA report cast doubts on its reliability.

Acknowledging the procedural lapses, the Supreme Court allowed the accused’s application and remanded the case for a de novo trial (fresh trial). The trial court has been directed to summon and examine the scientific experts associated with the DNA report, ensuring both the prosecution and defence have the opportunity to cross-examine them. Additionally, if the accused are unable to secure legal representation, an experienced defence counsel, as per the guidelines in the Anokhilal case, must be appointed.

Following the testimony of the scientific experts, the accused will be re-examined and granted an opportunity to present defence evidence. The trial court will then proceed to rehear arguments and decide the case afresh within four months.