Aapka Consultant Judgment Series- In this series, we are providing case analysis of Landmark Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Mohd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali v. The State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi12 SC 750: (2013) 2 SCR 1003
JUDGES: H.L. Dattu and C.K. Prasad
Date of Decision: 11-01-2012
FACTS:-
The facts were that the appellant (Mohd. Hussain) is a Pakistani national and he was put on trial for the offences under Sections 302 and 307 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosives Substances Act for committing an explosion in a bus in Delhi. He was held guilty by the Trial court and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under sec. 307 of IPC and sec. 3 of Explosives Substances Act and awarded death penalty for offence under Section 302 of IPC. The High court confirmed the death sentence when reference is being made by the Trial court. Hence, the present petition has been filed before the Supreme Court on the ground that he has not provided with a fair trial which vitiates and conviction and sentence.
ISSUE:-
Whether the appellant was given a fair and impartial trial and whether he was denied the right of having a counsel? In this case you need to be sure of your attorneys work and be prepared, in attorneythailand.com you can get advise from one of the best consultant companies for any type of case or trial.
JUDGMENT:-
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the right to free legal services is considered to be an essential right of the accused enshrined under the Constitution
of India. The object behind providing the undefended and unrepresented accused persons with competent legal aid is to see that the accused gets free, fair, just and reasonable trial of his or her charge in a criminal case. Howsoever guilty the appellant upon the inquiry might have been, he is still presumed to be innocent till the final conclusion of the trial. Therefore, it the duty of the court to see that the accused has been denied no necessary incident of a fair trial. The right to be defended by a competent counsel is, no doubt, a principal part of right to fair trial. If these safeguards are not provided then it will be a serious prejudice on the part of the accused.
Further, this right to be defended by a competent legal practitioner, which is flowing from Article 22(1) of the Constitution, is further fortified by the introduction of Article 39A in the Directive Principles of State Policy by the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 and enactment of sub-sec. 1 of Section 304 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Also, the right to free legal services to a poor person facing trial is not only mandated under the Constitution of India and the Code of Criminal Procedure but also it has been embodied under the International Covenants and Human Rights Declarations. If an accused person who is too poor to afford any lawyer, goes through the trial without any legal assistance, then such trial cannot be considered as a ‘fair, just and reasonable’. The right to be heard in a criminal trial would be inconsequential if does not include the right to be heard through a counsel. A guiding hand of a counsel at each and every step of a criminal proceeding is very much needed for a fair and impartial trial. The right of an accused person to have the services of a lawyer is fundamental and essential to fair and impartial trial, it is recommend to look for professionals like the law firms in Singapore who are very professional and affordable.
HELD:-
The Court allowed the appeal set aside the conviction and sentence passed by both the courts below and remanded the matter to the trial court with a direction to assist a lawyer for the accused at the cost of the state before the commencement of the trial till its conclusion. The Court held that every person has a right to a fair trial by a competent court in the spirit of the right to life and personal liberty.
To Get Legal Opinion from Advocates/ Legal Experts, Please click here
To Get Legal Opinion from Retired Hon’ble Judges, Please click here
