ARJUN KARMAKAR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has been convicted under section 302, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jorhat in Sessions Case No. 88 (K-G) of 1979.

(2.) When the hearing of the appeal was about to be concluded by learned Public Prosecutor, we ourselves found, to our utter surprise that the accused was denied of his Constitutional right to the assistance of a lawyer provided at State costs. During the course of the hearing of the appeal we were surprised to notice that there was no cross examination worth the name. Admittedly, the appellant, a tea garden workman, was unable to engage a lawyer or secure legal service on account of poverty, indigence and in communicate situation. Learned Additional Sessions Judge accordingly engaged Shri A. Thakur, an advocate of Jorhat as State defence. On 12.8.1983, the date of hearing of the case, Sri Thakur was absent and learned AddI. Sessions Judge promptly appointed an Advocate of Golaghat to defend the accused at the cost of the State. On the very same date, the prosecution examined all their witnesses and closed the case. The statement of the accused was recorded and arguments were heard on that date but delivery of the judgment was reserved. It is thus seen that on 12.8.1983, a new advocate was called upon to take up the case and on the very same date all the witnesses for the prosecution were examined, cross-examined and discharged, the accused was examined and arguments concluded. There is no material to show that even the brief of the case could be provided to the newly engaged Counsel. It. is, therefore, not surprising that there was no cross examination worth the name. Not a single witness was confronted with the statements made before the police. It was a mock trial. It was a case, which could result in capital punishment.

(3.) Is it providing free legal aid to appoint a fresh lawyer on the date of the trial when the accused is faced with a grave offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder? Was it just, expedient, proper and rational to hand over the chance of an important case to a new lawyer, call upon him to prepare the case, cross-examine the witness and argue it on the very same day? We feel that the accused was consigned to death on the date of commencement of the trial. It is humanly impossible even for an experienced lawyer to prepare such a case without instructions, without having at least a fortnights time to prepare the case. Legal aid was given to be denied. The accused was deprived of a fair trial. The trial has been vitiated and on this ground alone the appeal must be allowed. The reason for the apathy or deviation is not far to seek-the accused is poor and that is his grave crime.