BENGALURU:
No legal aid was provided, and as a result, the High Court of Karnataka has decided to send two individuals from Bihar, who were previously convicted for the rape and murder of a minor girl, back to the trial court.
The High Court discovered that the advocate hired by the accused did not consistently attend court and failed to properly cross-examine the witnesses, which greatly affected their case. In such circumstances, the accused should have been provided with free legal aid, but unfortunately, the Trial Court neglected to do so. Consequently, the Trial Court found them guilty and sentenced them to life imprisonment.
After spending nine years in jail, they will now face trial once again.
The two criminal appeals were filed by Pratima Devi and Mohammad Munna Alam from Bihar. Another accused, Suresh Kumar, who is Pratima Devi’s husband, was acquitted by the Trial Court.
Pratima and Suresh Kumar were tenants living next to the victim’s house in Bengaluru. It was alleged that Mohammad had an illicit relationship with Pratima Devi. She supposedly lured the minor girl to their house, where Mohammad committed a heinous assault on the victim.
When the girl raised an alarm, Pratima Devi and Mohammad strangled her to death and hid her body under a cot. Upon Suresh Kumar’s return home and discovery of the body, he and Pratima Devi locked the house and fled, fearing arrest.
Two days later, the victim’s parents, suspecting foul play, broke open their neighbor’s door and tragically found their child’s lifeless body.
The Mahadevapura police conducted the investigation in 2014. The three accused were charged under various sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge of LXX presided over the trial and on October 10, 2018, sentenced Pratima Devi and Mohammad to life imprisonment on four counts, including murder.
Suresh Kumar, on the other hand, was found guilty of only one charge: hiding and destroying evidence, along with two others. He served a four-year sentence of rigorous imprisonment.
During the proceedings in the High Court, the defense counsel for the two convicts argued that their legal representation failed to cross-examine a witness, resulting in an unfair trial. Consequently, they claimed that the conviction and sentencing were invalid. In a recent judgment, the division bench of Justice K S Mudagal and Justice K V Aravind found merit in the accused’s arguments.
According to the court, if a citizen is unable to afford legal services or faces any other disability that hinders access to justice, it is the responsibility of the State to provide free legal aid. In this particular case, the accused were in judicial custody and were identified as migrant laborers. Their appointed counsel failed to adequately represent them, and they were unable to reach him. This clearly indicated that they lacked the means to hire a lawyer and were disadvantaged due to their incarceration.
The High Court deemed this failure on the part of the Trial Court, emphasizing that it was mandatory for the court to provide the accused with free legal aid through the District Legal Services Authority. The conviction of the accused without proper defense or a fair trial was deemed a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the High Court remitted the case back to the Trial Court, directing them to conclude the trial as quickly as possible, within a maximum of three months from the date of production.
