Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Digambar Iranna Majkure, was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, in Sessions Case No.376 of 2001. He appealed against the conviction. The case had a peculiar procedural history: the accused was charged on 3rd November 2001 for offences under Sections 376, 302, and 201 IPC. He denied the charge and claimed trial. On 22nd November 2001, the trial judge recorded evidence of eight witnesses. The next day, 23rd November 2001, the accused filed an application (Exhibit 31) seeking legal aid, stating he was very poor and unable to meet the expenses of his lawyer, who had been engaged earlier. The application was accompanied by a proforma from the District Legal Aid Authority, Thane. The trial judge rejected the application on the same day, reasoning that the accused had earlier opted for his own advocate before the commencement of trial, and therefore the request was liable to be rejected. The accused was thereafter unrepresented during the remainder of the trial. The Bombay High Court, in appeal, considered the legality of this rejection. The court held that the right to free legal aid is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, and Section 304 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates the court to assign a pleader for the defence if the accused is not represented due to poverty. The trial court's order was unsustainable as it failed to consider the accused's indigence and the mandatory nature of the provision. The court further noted that the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 also provides for legal aid to eligible persons. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the case was remanded to the trial court for a fresh trial after providing legal aid to the accused. The court directed that the accused be produced before the trial court and that legal aid be provided in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Right to Free Legal Aid - Article 21 of Constitution of India, Section 304 CrPC, Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - The accused, an indigent person charged with murder, applied for legal aid during trial after his private advocate withdrew. The trial court rejected the application solely because the accused had earlier opted for a private advocate. Held that the right to free legal aid is a fundamental right under Article 21 and the court is duty-bound to provide legal aid to an indigent accused. The rejection was illegal and vitiated the trial. (Paras 4-7) B) Criminal Procedure - Legal Aid - Section 304 CrPC - The trial court's order rejecting legal aid application was passed without considering the accused's indigence and the mandatory nature of Section 304 CrPC. Held that the court must assign a counsel for the defence at State expense when the accused is not represented by a pleader due to poverty. The conviction based on such a trial is unsustainable. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's rejection of the accused's application for legal aid, on the ground that he had earlier opted for a private advocate, is valid in law and whether the consequent conviction is sustainable.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Case remanded to trial court for fresh trial after providing legal aid to the accused. Accused to be produced before trial court on 16th October 2006.
Law Points
- Right to free legal aid is fundamental right under Article 21
- Denial of legal aid vitiates trial
- Legal Services Authorities Act
- 1987 mandates legal aid to eligible accused
- Section 304 CrPC requires court to assign counsel for unrepresented accused
- Trial court's rejection of legal aid application on ground of earlier engagement of private counsel is unsustainable
