VESTA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants were tried for offences punishable under 5. 302, I.P.C. and under S. 302 read with S.109, I.P.C. by the 1st AddI. Sessions Judge, Alirajpur, who found the appellants guilty of the aforesaid offences and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment, vide judgment dated 16.6.1985, passed in Sessions Trial No. 239 of 1985. The appellants being aggrieved by the said judgment have preferred this appeal, challenging their conviction mainly on the ground that they were denied a fair trial by the trial Judge. On merits also no case is made out against them, so as to sustain the conviction.

(2.) As regards fair trial, it was urged that as defence counsel was not allowed to put questions to prosecution witness No. 1 Pratap, he was unduly obstructed by the learned Judge, forcing him to make an application on each point that was sought to be urged or question that was sought to be put to the first prosecution witness. In the circumstances, the counsel refused to defend the accused, although he was made to remain in the Court, but he did not conduct the case. The accused were called upon to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses 1 to 8, examined on 14.6.85, between 12.20 p.m. to 2.00 p.m. and 2.30 p.m. to 4.00 p.m. Thus, within 3 hours and 10 minutes, the whole prosecution case, was over, including recording of accuseds statement. The accused applied and prayed for summoning the defence witnesses as per list submitted on 14.8.1986. The appellants on 16.8.1985 moved yet another application praying for issuance of summons against the witnesses, but the trial Court refused to issue process against the witnesses, holding that the application was moved merely as a pretext, it was lacking in bonafides and ultimately dismissed. On the same day arguments were heard and judgment pronounced.

(3.) Going through the order-sheets dated 14.8.1985 and 16.8.1985, it is abundantly clear that the accused were not having any legal assistance; nor was it provided by the Court. As many as eight witnesses were examined on 14.8,1985, the defence counsel was not allowed to put certain questions, which the trial Court felt to be irrelevant, while the counsel maintained that the question was not merely relevant, but very material as well. He made an application and again some objection, followed by another application. The counsel expressed his inability to conduct the case in face of such obstruction at almost every question he put to the witnesses. He prayed staying proceedings so as to enable him to move for transfer of the case. The counsel, who had expressed his inability to conduct the case was not allowed to withdraw from the case and made to wait in the Court under threat of a complaint to the State Bar Council. Counsel, therefore, remained present in the Court.