THE STATE Vs. TIKARAM HANERI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Criminal reference from the Mizo Hills. The accused has been convicted and sentenced to death by the Additional Deputy Commissioner and Additional District Magistrate, Mizo Hills, under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. The accused has also put in an appeal from jail.

(2.) THE Additional Deputy Commissioner, Mizo Hills, is empowered to try cases of this nature under an appropriate notification dated 19 -2 -69.

(3.) AS it appears from the judgment, the accused was undefended during the entire trial. This is something very serious. Whenever and wherever under the jurisdiction of this Court an accused person is tried for murder under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, where the extreme penalty of law may be inflicted if the offence is established, he must not remain undefended in the trial. No person can be allowed to lose his life in an established Court of Law under any civilised system without affording an opportunity of defence. The reason that the accused did not ask for a lawyer or did not know his rights to exercise the same to ask lor an opportunity for being defended by a lawyer of his choice, does not absolve the trial Court from its duty to arrange for his defence. Undefended as he was, facing a Sessions trial and which, as in this case, has resulted in his conviction and sentence to death, we are of opinion that the rule of Pauper defence laid down in the Assam Law Department Manual should be applicable in this case and cases of like nature. Rule 19(1) of this Manual clearly lays down: