The Bombay High Court has set aside the conviction and death sentence imposed on a man in a brutal rape and murder case of a seven-year-old child, ordering a de novo trial after finding that the proceedings before the trial court were vitiated by serious violations of the accused’s right to a fair trial.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Sarang V. Kotwal and Sandesh D. Patil held that the accused was denied effective legal representation at crucial stages of the trial, leading to a miscarriage of justice. The Court noted that multiple key prosecution witnesses were examined in the absence of any legal aid counsel for the accused, including the victim’s mother, whose testimony formed the backbone of the prosecution case.
The Bench highlighted that despite requests for legal aid, there were prolonged delays in appointing counsel, frequent changes of legal aid lawyers, and instances where appointed advocates either remained absent or withdrew due to lack of access to case papers. As a result, the accused was left unrepresented during examination-in-chief of several witnesses and was unable to effectively cross-examine them.
The Court further noted that even when witnesses were later recalled, the cross-examinations conducted were perfunctory and largely limited to suggestions, falling far short of meaningful defence. In some instances, crucial witnesses were never cross-examined at all, significantly prejudicing the accused’s case.
Terming the lapses as a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, the Bench observed that the right to free legal aid is an essential component of a fair, just, and reasonable procedure. It emphasized that in cases involving the possibility of a death sentence, courts must exercise heightened vigilance to ensure that the accused is provided competent and effective legal representation at every stage.
The case arises from a 2017 incident in Nashik district, where a minor girl was sexually assaulted and murdered. The trial court had convicted the accused and imposed the death penalty, while also convicting other co-accused for destruction of evidence. However, the High Court found that the manner in which the trial was conducted undermined the integrity of the proceedings itself.
The Bench directed that before proceeding further, the trial court must ensure that all accused are properly represented and, where required, are provided legal aid through the District Legal Services Authority in accordance with established guidelines. It also granted liberty to the prosecution to examine witnesses afresh and to lead additional evidence if necessary, given that the trial is to begin anew.
While Accused No.1 will continue to remain in custody, the Court allowed Accused Nos.3 and 4 to remain on bail on the same terms, subject to execution of fresh bonds. The High Court further directed that the retrial be expedited and, as far as possible, concluded within ten months. The matter has been directed to be listed before the trial court on April 6, 2026, with directions for the accused to be present and for adequate opportunity to be given to them to engage counsel or avail legal aid.
Emphasising procedural fairness, the Court instructed that appointed counsel must be furnished with all necessary papers promptly and be given sufficient time to prepare. It also clarified that the trial court shall decide the matter independently on its own merits, without being influenced by the earlier judgment which now stands set aside.
In a broader direction, the Court ordered circulation of key Supreme Court rulings on fair trial and legal aid, including Anokhilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ashok v. State of Uttar Pradesh, to all trial courts and District Legal Services Authorities. The confirmation case and connected criminal appeals were accordingly disposed of.
Appearances:
Smt. S. D. Shinde, APP for the State/Appellant in Confirmation Case No. 5 of 2019.
Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhary, along with Ms. Payoshi Roy and Mr. Siddharth Sharma, for Respondent No.1 in Confirmation Case No. 5 of 2019 and for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1645 of 2019.
Ms. Ameeta Kuttikrishnan, appointed Advocate for Respondent No.2 in Confirmation Case No. 5 of 2019.
Mr. K. H. Holambe Patil, along with Mr. K. K. Holambe Patil, Mr. Bhalchandra Kumbhar and Mr. Vishal Shirsat, for the Appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 373 of 2022.
Accused Vilas Annasaheb Mahale was produced before the Court.
