No man should suffer because of the mistake of the court, Gujarat HC frowns upon quality of legal aid in murder case

In a recent judgment, the Gujarat High Court set aside the capital punishment awarded to a young woman accused of a double murder on the ground that her mental condition was not taken account of..The Division Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and AC Rao began the judgment by stating that if a litigant is harmed by mistake, it is the duty of the courts to correct this wrong. The judgement states,.“There is no higher principle for the guidance of the court than the one that no act of courts should harm a litigant and it is the bounden duty of the courts to see that if a person is harmed by a mistake of the court he should be restored to the position he would have occupied, but for that mistake. This is aptly summed up in the maxim ‘actus curiae neminem gravabit’.”.The Gujarat Court also frowned upon the quality of legal aid provided to the appellant by the Legal Services Authority..The appellant, a nineteen-year-old woman, was awarded capital punishment after being convicted of a double murder by the trial court in Gandhidham. She was also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years..When the Gujarat High Court examined the evidence furnished during the trial, it observed that the plea of insanity was not raised by the defence, nor was it touched upon by the prosecution..The counsel representing the appellant before the Gujarat High Court brought the Court’s attention to the fact that the appellant was undergoing treatment for her mental condition for the last two years. Her unstable mental state had also found a mention in the statements made by the informant in the First Information Report. This fact was overlooked or missed by the trial court, submitted the Public Prosecutor assisting the Gujarat High Court in the case..A public prosecutor is an officer of the Gujarat High Court and shall not try to obtain a conviction “by hook or by crook”, theGujarat High Court noted, further adding that the investigating officer as well as the defence lawyer appointed by the Legal Services Authority failed in their duties in this case..While saying so, theGujarat High Court highlighted the mandatory nature of compliance with Section 329 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which deals with the procedure of trial before the Magistrate when the accused appears to be of unsound mind. (Gujarat High Court).The Gujarat High Court ordered a re-trial of the case, directing that an inquiry under Section 329 of the CrPC be conducted to ascertain whether or not the appellant is indeed of unsound mind. Should the appellant be found to be capable of making her defence, the trial court can proceed with framing charges, the Gujarat High Court held..The Bench also delved into the issue of efficiency of the legal aid provided to the appellant by the Legal Services Authority. Underscoring the importance and gravity of good legal aid, the Gujarat High Court said that the legal aid service is not a platform for training of young lawyers..“This is a second matter in last 15 days we are dealing with in which we have noticed that the legal aid which is being provided is just for namesake. The legal aid is nothing but a farce. The panel of lawyers which is being prepared for the purpose of legal aid is not a platform to provide training to young lawyers or give them an opportunity to gain experience as regards conduct of a sessions case. The cross-examination of the witnesses in a serious offence like murder is not a child’s play. It is very unfortunate to note that in the case on hand there is practically no cross-examination.”.Thus, reiterating that it is the duty of the court to ensure that every party is adequately represented, the Bench went on to lay down the following directives for police officers as well as Judicial Magistrates and Sessions Judges:.When an accused appears to be of unsound mind, it is the duty of the arresting Police Officer to produce him before medical professionals and obtain certification in this regard.The onus of this medical examination of the accused falls on the Judicial Magistrate should the arresting Police officer fail to do so.Every accused, particularly those facing charges inviting substantial sentence, should be provided appropriate legal assistance at the State’s expense.It is the duty of the Sessions Judge to ensure that sufficiently experienced lawyers are provided to the accused for their representation.The Directorate of Prosecution, Legal Remembrance and the Principal Secretary, Home Department, must regularly review the manner in which the Public Prosecutors in-charge of the sensitive cases are conducting the trial..The judgment ends with the Gujarat High Court warning,.“If inexperienced advocates alone are available to defend such unfortunate accused, the court has a primary duty to come to the aid of the accused by putting timely and useful questions and warning the advocates from treading on dangerous grounds.”.Read the Judgment:.Bar & Bench is available on WhatsApp. For real-time updates on stories, Click here to subscribe to our WhatsApp.