JAI SHANKAR & PAPPU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 24th April, 2007 this Court had discussed the position of law relating to the supply of copy of the judgment and other documents to the Convicted accused in terms of section 363 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Code"). The relevant position in law is to be found inter alia in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh (1986) 2 SCC 401. which guarantees the legal aid at State expense to indigent persons. The earlier practice relating to supply of only the judgment to a convict was leading to a situation where the preparation of appeal was hindered because of non-availability of all the record with the accused who was represented during the trial by an amicus curiae or Legal Aid Cell nominated advocate. The liberty of a person is precious and as guaranteed by our Constitution and a person cannot be deprived of it unless such deprivation is in accordance with law. Not only does an accused have a right to defend himself but the right to defence also includes the right to effective and meaningful defence at the trial and indeed the appeal. Accordingly, this Court is considering the effect of Section 363 of the Code and the right of the accused on conviction to get the relevant documents. A perusal of Section 363 Criminal Procedure Code shows that the poor and indigent accused should have full access to the entire record of the trial court in order to prefer and pursue meaningful and effective appeal. Section 363 of the Code reads as follows: "363. Copy of judgment to be given to the accused and other persons-

(2.) Where an indigent accused cannot defend himself effectively and adequately, the inbuilt right to equality, life and liberty envisaged under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution becomes instrumental. Further, Article 39-A makes it obligatory on the State to ensure that legal system promotes justice on the basis of equal opportunity and works towards providing effective legal aid in order to ensure that no citizen is denied opportunities of securing justice by reason of economic or other disabilities. Articles 14, 21 and 39A are reproduced below:

(3.) In Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar, (1980) 1 SCC 108, the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasised upon providing legal aid to the undertrials. Referring to both Articles 21 and 39-A the Court pointed out that while Article 39-A emphasised that free legal service cannot be segregated from 'reasonable, fair and just' procedure, the right to free legal services is implicit in guarantee of Article 21. Further, these constitutional objective cannot be achieved if a financial deprivation results in non effective legal representation of the indigent leading to deprivation of liberty. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: