BALIRAM MADHUKAR DALVI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed from jail by a person who was made to face the trial without assistance of any lawyer or any sort of legal aid before the Sessions court, in spite of full knowledge about the same to the concerned presiding officer of the sessions Court as well as the learned prosecutor before the Sessions Court. The appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of I. P. C. and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(2.) The appellant was sought to be charged under Sections 302, 323, 120-B read with section 34 of I. P. C. , on the ground that he along with three others on 10th February, 1997 at about 5 p. m. within the limits of village mhasewadi, taluka Manegaon, district Raigad, in furtherence of common intention committed murder by intentionally or knowingly causing death of one Shankar Babu Shelar and voluntarily causing hurt to Chandana chandrakant Shelar. The charge in that regard was framed by Shri. S. D. Mohod, then Sessions judge at Raigad-Alibag in Sessions Case No. 96 of 1997 on 14th February, 1998. The appellant was in fact arrested on 13th February. 1997 itself. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. Recording of evidence commenced on 20th April, 1998 The prosecution examined 9 witnesses and the recording of last witness was concluded on 17th July, 1998, while same judicial officer was presiding over the Sessions court Raigad all throughout. By judgment dated 15th February, 1999, the same Sessions Judge acquitted other three accused, while convicting the appellant herein under Section 302 of I. P. C. .

(3.) Taking us through the records particularly the roznama sheets before the sessions Court, the evidence recorded before the Sessions Court, the plea of the appellant recorded before the Sessions Court and the impugned judgment, the learned advocate for the appellant submitted that the court below in total disregard to the mandatory provisions in relation to the procedure to be followed in cases where accused is not represented by an advocate in Sessions trial, without giving proper opportunity to the appellant of availing necessary legal assistance and proper representation by an advocate, concluded the trial, thereby totally flouted the basic principle of natural justice, resulting in great prejudice to the appellant. Placing reliance in the decision of the Apex Court, in the case of Suk Das and another Vs. Union Territory of Arunachal pradesh, 1986 AIR(SC) 991, she submitted that it is the fundamental right of an accused in sessions Case to have free legal aid service and the same having been denied, the impugned judgment should be declared bad in law and the appellant should be acquitted in the matter. Further drawing our attention to the rules regarding Legal Aid to unrepresented person in cases before the Sessions Court framed in the year 1982 in terms of the provisions of section 304 of Cr. P. C. , 1974, she submitted that there has to be accountability for the lawyers who are appointed on legal aid service to represent unrepresented accused persons. Once a lawyer is appointed to represent such accused person, if he fails to perform his duty by remaining absent when the matter comes up for hearing, there should be some penalty prescribed and their names should be struck off from the legal aid panel. She further submitted that in order to attract better quality work by the lawyers appointed under legal aid panel, time has come for reviewing the remuneration which is paid to such lawyers for the services rendered by them under legal aid services. The fees which are fixed in the year 1997 cannot be said to be just and proper in the year 2007 and the same need to be reviewed. In that regard, attention was sought to be drawn to the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in Sagri vs. State of Madhya Pradesh,1991 1 Crimes 580.