CHELLAPPAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these cases, we are constrained to order a retrial because of an error committed by the Additional Sessions Judge.

(2.) THERE were fourteen accused persons before the lower court, of whom nine have been acquitted. The other five accused persons, accused persons 1 to 5, have been convicted, the second accused of murder under section 302, accused persons 1, 3 and 5 under S. 323 and the fourth accused under S. 325 of the Penal Code. The second accused has been sentenced to the extreme penalty of the law; accused persons 1, 3 and 5 have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months each; and the fourth accused has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 4 years.

(3.) APPOINTING a counsel, especially in a case involved in a charge for a serious offence like murder, should not be treated as a farce -should not be treated as a formal affair or a matter of course. Justice should not only be done, but should appear to be done too. A counsel appointed just before the opening of the trial without getting any opportunity to look into the papers, study the brief or consult the accused, can do no substantial help in the trial. It was the duty of the Sessions Judge to have seen that the counsel appointed was given reasonable opportunity to prepare the case. The reason given by the Sessions Judge in the B diary shows a thorough lack of imagination, because the case had been posted for trial from day to day from 3rd August to 7th August. The Sessions Judge could have just put off the commencement of the trial by 24 hours, to the next day, so that the counsel appointed could have got some time to prepare the brief and consult the accused persons, who were already present in the court; the adjournment need not necessarily have been to January 1971. If only the Sessions Judge did that, we would have been spared the necessity of ordering a retrial at this stage.