Rape and murder case: Supreme Court sets aside death sentence of accused; slams trial court for hasty 15-day trial

The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside the death sentence and conviction of a man in a rape and murder case, on concerns that he was found guilty after a hasty trial that lasted just 15 days [Naveen @ Ajay vs State of Madhya Pradesh]..A bench of Justices BR Gavai, PS Narasimha and Prashant Kumar Mishra criticised the trial court for conducting the trial in such a hasty manner.It, therefore, sent the matter back to the trial court for a fresh trial.."The Trial Court conducted the trial in a hurried manner without giving proper opportunity to the accused to defend himself .. the matter is remitted back to the trial court for de novo trial by affording proper opportunity to the appellant to defend himself," the Court directed in its October 19 order..The Supreme Court also directed that a senior counsel be engaged to defend the accused when the matter is heard afresh by the trial court..The Court was hearing an appeal challenging a 2018 Madhya Pradesh High Court order that had upheld the trial court's death sentence in case involving the rape and murder of a 3 month old child..Notably, the trial was completed and the judgment was pronounced within a record span of 15 days. The Court was told that the alleged crime took place on April 20, 2018 and that the chargesheet was filed within a week. The trial then started on April 27, 2018, and the judgment imposing the death sentence was pronounced on May 12, 2018..Among other concerns, the Supreme Court opined that it was not clear whether the defence counsel was supplied with all material required to advance the final arguments.The bench also noted that the High Court had been wrong in not allowing the accused to challenge certain expert medical reports. The High Court had reasoned that the accused could have cross-examined the authors of the reports during the trial.The Supreme Court, however, found that it had been impossible for the accused to do so within the timeframe given by the trial court."It was impossible for the accused himself to produce ... the authors of the Reports, in one day because the said experts are government servants and could not have attended the Court at the request of an accused in jail. The Trial Court treated the accused as if he is carrying a magic wand which is available to produce highly qualified experts, who are government servants, on a phone call. There was no opportunity, in the real sense, to the appellant to cross-examine the experts," the top Court observed..In its judgment, the apex court further emphasised that it was important for courts to maintain 'judicial calm' to ensure a fair trial."In the hallowed halls of justice, the essence of a fair and impartial trial lies in the steadfast embrace of judicial calm. It is incumbent upon a judge to exude an aura of tranquility, offering a sanctuary of reason and measured deliberation. In the halls of justice, the gavel strikes not in haste, but in a deliberate cadence ensuring every voice, every piece of evidence, is accorded its due weight. The expanse of judicial calm serves not only as a pillar of constitutional integrity, but as the very bedrock upon which trust in a legal system is forged," the Court said..The Court proceeded to allow the appeal filed by the accused (appellant) and set aside his death sentence. .Senior Advocate BH Marlapalle with advocates Bhavesh Seth, Avinish Kumar Saurab, Harini Raghupathy, Rajat Mittal, and Ajith Pravin Wagh represented the accused, one Naveen @ Ajay.Advocates Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Maitreyee Jagat Joshi, Smriti Razdan, Indira Bhakar, Astik Gupta, Prakhar Shrivastava, and Akanksha Tomar appeared for the Madhya Pradesh government..[Read Judgment]