Legal assitance is a constitutional mandate: Karnataka High Court

The High Court has directed the judicial officers to ensure that sufficient opportunity is provided to the accused to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses

Observing that legal assistance is a constitutional mandate, the Karnataka High Court has directed judicial officers to ensure the mandate is fulfilled. A division bench comprising Justice B Veerappa and Justice K Natarajan said that courts should act as societal parents to ensure fair trial.

The bench made this observation while setting aside the order of conviction passed in a case of alleged rape of a minor. The trial court had rejected the application, belatedly filed by the accused to cross examine the witnesses, and passed the judgment. The High Court bench said not providing an opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses is nothing but denial of fair trial. The bench remanded the matter back to the trial court with a direction to allow the accused to cross-examine all the prosecution witnesses and to dispose of the matter within a period of three months.

The division bench said that Section 304 of the CrPC provides for legal assistance to an accused on state expenditure.

“We have come across several cases, wherein the trial courts during trial when the accused counsel was absent, closes the cross-examination of the defence as nil and proceed to pass the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the accused. It is against the fundamental rights guaranteed to the accused persons under Articles 21, 22 and 39A of the Constitution of India as well as the provisions of Sections 303 and 304 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,” the court said.

The bench also directed the High Court registry to send a copy of the judgment to all the principal district judges in the state to ensure that sufficient opportunity shall be provided to the accused to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses.

The advocate for the accused was absent when the matter was posted for cross-examination. The counsel for the accused had filed an application seeking opportunity for cross-examination of prosecution witnesses when the matter was posted for judgment to March 14, 2018. However, the trial court rejected the application and passed the judgment.