New Delhi: The Supreme Court has set aside the death sentence of a man convicted of killing his wife and 12-year-old daughter. The Court ruled that he was denied a fair trial, violating Article 21 of the Constitution. This decision overturns the Allahabad High Court’s verdict, which had upheld his conviction and death penalty.
Trial Lapses Denied Fair Hearing
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta found multiple flaws in the trial. The defense counsel was absent during key witness examinations. The court closed cross-examination without proper representation. Defense statements were recorded inadequately. The questions put to the accused were vague and did not address crucial incriminating evidence.
Frequent changes in legal representation further weakened the defense. The new lawyers received insufficient time to prepare. The Court emphasized that appointing legal aid is not enough. Representation must be “effective and meaningful.”
Legal Precedents and Global Standards
The Supreme Court cited Anokhilal v. State of M.P. (2019) to stress the need for competent legal representation in capital cases. The ruling referenced international laws, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which guarantee fair trial rights.
The Court also cited the Rome Statute, emphasizing that even those accused of heinous crimes deserve fair trials. It noted that flawed procedures in capital punishment cases could lead to irreversible injustices.
Verdict and Next Steps
The Supreme Court found serious lapses in the trial process. It ruled that the conviction and death sentence could not stand. The Trial Court must now conduct a fresh trial, starting from the charge-framing stage. This ruling emphasizes the strict adherence to due process in capital cases. The highest standards of fairness and legal representation are essential to prevent miscarriages of justice.
Explore Apnilaw for more..
