HABIL SINDHU Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the sole appellant-Habil Sindhu had assailed his conviction under Sec. 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, hereinafter referred to as 'Penal Code' for brevity by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Baripada in S.T. Case No.40/163 of 2003. As per the judgment dtd. 30/6/2005, the learned trial Judge convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for life for the offence under Sec. 302 of the Penal Code. No separate sentence has been passed for the offence under Sec. 201 of the Penal Code.

(2.) The learned Amicus Curiae has assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds pertaining to appreciation of evidence. However, we are inclined to take into consideration the last submission made by the learned Amicus Curiae relying upon the reported case of Anokhilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2019) 20 SCC 196. He would submit that in this case the appellant was not provided with effective free legal services by the State Defence Counsel (SDC). The learned counsel for the appellant argued that although the learned trial Judge engaged a SDC to defend him, but such counsel was engaged without assessing his ability to defend the accused, who was charged with murder of three persons. Moreover, it is also argued that the counsel was engaged on the date of trial when the private defence counsel appearing for the appellant did not appear. Though on date of trial, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, on the next two dates, majority of the material witnesses were examined. Before passing any comment on the issues at hand, we would like to rely upon the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anokhilal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (supra). After taking to consideration the plethora of judgments of the Supreme Court, the following principles were recognized:

(3.) After conclusion of the hearing in the reported case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has given the following directions: