SUK DAS Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave raises a question of considerable importance relating to the administration of criminal justice in the country. The question is whether an accused who on account of his poverty is unable to afford legal representation for himself in a trial involving possibility of imprisonment imperilling his personal liberty, is entitled to free legal aid at State cost and whether it is obligatory on him to make an application for free legal assistance or the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge trying him is bound to inform him that he is entitled to free legal aid and inquire from him whether he wishes to have a lawyer provided to him at State cost:if he is not so informed and in consequence he does not apply for free legal assistance and as a result he is not represented by any lawyer in the trial and is convicted, is the conviction vitiated and liable to be set aside. This question is extremely important because we have almost 50% population which is living below the poverty line and around 70% is illiterate and large sections of people just do not know that if they are unable to afford legal representation in a criminal trial, they are entitled to free legal assistance provided to them at State cost.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal are not material because the question posed for our consideration is a pure question of law. But even so the broad facts may be briefly set out since they provide the backdrop against which the question of law arises for consideration.

(3.) The appellants and four other accused were charged in the Court of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Dibang Valley, Anini, Arunachal Pradesh for an offence under Section 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on the allegation that the appellants and the other four accused threatened Shri H. S. Kohli, Assistant Engineer, Central Public Works Department, Anini with a view to compelling him to cancel the transfer orders of the appellants which had been passed by him. The case was tried as a warrant case and at the trial 8 witnesses, on behalf of the prosecution, were examined. The appellants were not represented by any lawyer since they were admittedly unable to afford legal representation on account of their poverty and the result was that they could not cross-examine the witnesses of the prosecution. The appellants wished to examine 7 witnesses in defence but out of them two could not be examined since they were staying far away and moreover, in the opinion of the Court, they were not material witnesses. The remaining 5 witnesses were examined by the appellants without any legal assistance. The result was that at the end of the trial the other 4 accused were acquitted but the appellants were convicted of the offence under Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years.