Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Behara Mohan vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 26 December, 2024
Author: K.Suresh Reddy
Bench: K.Suresh Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 &
551 of 2024
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.Sreenivasa Reddy)
These Criminal Appeals are preferred against the
judgment dated 11.10.2023 in Sessions Case No.49 of 2023
on the file of the Special Judge for trial of cases under the
SCs and STs (PoA) Act, 1989-cum-VIII Additional District
and Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru.
2. Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.195 of 2024 is
A.2; appellant in Criminal Appeal No.207 of 2024 is A.1 and
Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.551 of 2024 is A.3, in the
aforesaid Sessions Case. In the said Sessions Case, the
learned Special Sessions Judge tried the appellants herein,
along with other accused A.4 to A.6.
3. Substance of charges against the accused is that
– on 13.06.2023 at about 9.00 PM, on the road situated at
the back side road of Monastery, Vidya Nagar, Eluru, A.1 to
2
KSRJ & SRKJ
CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024
A.4 conspired together to commit an offence i.e. to pour
acid on Smt. Yadla Fransina @ Francinamma (hereinafter
referred to, as ‘the deceased’), and thereby they committed
an offence punishable under Section 120B read with 34
IPC; that on the same date, time and place, A.2 and A.3
wrongfully restrained the deceased from proceeding further
and thereby committed an offence punishable under
Section 341 IPC; that on the same date, time and place, A.2
and A.3, at the instigation of A.1, voluntarily caused
grievous hurt by pouring acid on the deceased and thereby
A.1 to A.3 committed an offence punishable under Section
326-A IPC; that on the same date, time and place, A.2 to
A.4, at the instigation of A.1, intentionally and knowingly
that their act would cause death, poured acid on her face
and chest and caused death, and thereby A.1 to A.4
committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read
with 34 IPC; that on the same date, time and place, A.2 and
A.3 committed the offence punishable under the Indian
Penal Code, knowing fully well that the defacto complainant
belongs to a member of Scheduled Caste and thereby
3
KSRJ & SRKJ
CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024
committed offences punishable under Section 3 (2) (v) of the
SCs and STs (PoA) Amended Act, 2015; that on the same
date, time and place, A.2 and A.3 committed the offences
punishable under IPC as mentioned in the schedule of SCs
and STs (PoA) Amended Act, 2015, knowing fully well that
the defacto complainant belongs to a member of Scheduled
Caste and thereby committed an offence punishable under
Section 3 (2) (va) of the SCs and STs (PoA) Amended Act,
2015, and lastly that A.5 and A.6, prior to 13.06.2023
possessed and sold away corrosive acid to A.2 without
proper licence and thereby contravened Rules 13 to 15 read
with 19 of the A.P. Poisonous Possession and Sales Rules,
2016 punishable under Section 6 (1) (i) of the Poisonous
Act, 2019.
4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows.
(a) The deceased is a married woman and blessed
with a daughter and was residing in a portion of the house
of her parents situated at Vidhya Nagar, Eluru, due to
differences with her husband. P.W.1 is the mother, P.W.2 is
the younger sister, and L.W.2-Y.Soulu Raju is the father, of
4
KSRJ & SRKJ
CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024the deceased. P.W.2, who also got married, is staying in the
portion of her parents’ due to disputes with her husband.
The deceased was working in Veda Priya Smart Dental
Clinic, Vidhyanagar, Eluru, as a Receptionist. P.Ws.3 and 4
are the daughter and son of P.W.1, and they were residing
on the backside of Monastery Missionary Institute,
Vidhyanagar, Eluru. A.1 is a resident of Kothagudem
Colony, Eluru, and he was a painter by profession. Two
years prior to the incident, A.1 attended painting works in
the house of P.W.1 and he got acquaintance with P.W.2,
which became love and led to an extramarital relationship
between them. A.1 used to visit the house of P.W.2
frequently. The deceased and P.W.4 did not like his visits to
the home of P.W.2 and raised objection for A.1 visiting their
house. On that, A.1 bore grudge and conspired with A.2
and A.3 to do away with the life of deceased by attacking
her with Acid. A.2, with the help of his friend A.4, secured
the acid from the shop of A.5 viz. Sri Vijaya Lakshmi
General Stores at Clock Tower Center, Eluru, used to sell
the acid unauthorizedly without any permission for high
5
KSRJ & SRKJ
CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024
prices. A.6 was working as Clerk under A.5 in the said store
of A.5. A.5 used to purchase the acid from a dealer/
P.W.12. A.2 informed A.4 about their conspiracy with A.1,
and A.3 and A.4 had acquaintance with A.5 and purchased
acid for Rs.100/- and kept in Kingfisher Beer Bottle and
concealed it at Neem Tree situated at Badeti Chowk, Eluru.
The deceased used to return to her home after completion
of her duty in the hospital on her black color Hero Pleasure
Scooter bearing Registration No. AP39RB 4609. A.1 to A.3
conducted Rekki at the route of the deceased to attack her
with acid. They fixed the short gravel road between two
cement roads with pits and road cutting, and there was the
possibility of slowing down vehicles, and they fixed the said
spot to execute their plan.
(b) On 13.06.2023 at about 7.00 p.m., A.3 secured
motorcycle from P.W.14 through A.2, and at about 7.00
p.m., A.1 to A.3 went to the place where they kept the acid
in the Beer Bottle, went to Delhi Bazaar Shop and
purchased wide mouth bottle by A.1 and A.2 in the shop of
P.W.15. A.1 to A.3 left the place by Activa Scooty, en route
6
KSRJ & SRKJ
CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024
to Smart Dental Clinic, reached Vidhya Nagar Gandhi
Bomma Center. A.1 got down at the Gandhi Statue Center,
while A.2 and A.3 proceeded to the scene of the offence and
waited for the phone call of A.1 about arrival of the
deceased. At about 9:00 p.m., as usual, the deceased left
the hospital by her Scooter and started going to her house.
A.1 called A.2’s Mobile Phone with SIM No.9390098270
from his Mobile Phone with SIM No.8897321139 and
informed that the deceased was arriving at the spot. Then,
A.2 and A.3 poured the acid into the wider mouth of the
beer bottle and waited for the deceased’s arrival. A.2 and
A.3 noticed that the deceased was coming opposite them.
A.2 sat on the Scooty readily to skulk away after the
execution of their plan. The moment the deceased slowed
down her vehicle at the spot, A.3 poured the acid on the
face and chest of the deceased and caused acid-burned
injuries. In that process, some Acid also fell on A.2 and A.3
and their Scooty. The clothes of A.2 and A.3 also got acid
holes and they sustained burn injuries, and the paint of
Scooty vanished at the place where the acid fell. A.2 and
7
KSRJ & SRKJ
CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024
A.3 fled away from the spot by informing over his mobile
phone about pouring acid on the deceased.
(c) The deceased with burn injuries reached her house
with a hue and cry; P.Ws.1 and L.W.2 opened the doors
and found the deceased with burn injuries. The deceased
said two persons poured acid on her, and she was suffering
from severe pain, and she was unable to see clearly. P.W.3,
the sister of the deceased, and P.W.8, the neighbor, shifted
the deceased to the hospital. P.Ws.9, 10, and L.W.11-Y.
Kalpana came and witnessed the condition of the deceased.
On the phone call of A.2, A.1 came to T.T.D.Kalyana
Mandapam, Eluru. A.1 informed that P.W.2 was calling him
and asked and A.3 to leave the place; later, he would
contact them. A.2 and A.3 left for their houses, and on the
way, they threw away the two bottles with some acid stains.
They went to homes, changed their clothes, returned to the
place where the bottles were thrown, and concealed their
acid-stained clothes with bottles in the shrubs at
Tammileru, Y.S.R. Colony. He handed over the Activa
8
KSRJ & SRKJ
CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024
Scooter to P.W.14. P.W.27 recorded the statement of the
deceased at Eluru Government Hospital.
(d) On 14.06.2023 at 00.30 hours on the report of
P.W.1, P.W.28 the Circle Inspector of Police, Disha Women
Police Station, Eluru, registered a case in Crime
No.80/2023 U/s.341, 326-A, 307 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and
submitted Ex P62 F.I.R. to Court and copies to the
concerned officials. Pursuant to the same, police
commenced investigation. On 21.06.2023 at 1.20 a.m., the
injured/Fransina, succumbed to the injuries. Then P.W.29
filed a memo to alter Section of Law from 307 of I.P.C. to
Section 302 of I.P.C. Later, P.W.29 conducted inquest over
the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators
P.W.24 and L.W.29 K.V.Durgarao and also in the presence
of blood relatives P.Ws.1 to 4, examined P.Ws.1 to 16,
P.Ws.20 and 23 and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C. statements.
After autopsy and completion of investigation and receipt of
relevant documents, police laid the charge sheet.
9
KSRJ & SRKJ
CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024
5. During trial, P.Ws.1 to 29 were examined and
Exs.P1 to P104 were got marked, besides case properties
M.Os.1 to 27, on behalf of the prosecution. When the
accused were examined under Section 313 CrPC to explain
the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in
the evidence of prosecution witnesses, they denied the
same. A.1 examined himself as D.W.1. No documents were
marked on behalf of the accused.
6. The learned Special Sessions Judge, vide the
impugned judgment, found A.1 to A.3 guilty of the offence
punishable under Sections 120B and 302 read with 34 IPC;
A.2 and A.3 guilty of the offence punishable under Section
3 (2) (v) of the SCs and the STs (PoA) Amendment Act,
2015, and A.5 guilty of the offence punishable under
Section 9 (1) (i) of the Poisons Act, 1919, and accordingly
convicted them of the respective offences. The learned
Special Sessions Judge sentenced A.1 to A.3 to undergo
imprisonment for life each for the offences punishable
under Section 302 and 120B IPC and to pay fine of
Rs.5,000/- each (for each offence by each of the accused) in
10
KSRJ & SRKJ
CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024
default of payment of fine amounts, they were sentenced to
suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months
each (for each offence by each of the accused. The learned
Special Sessions Judge further sentenced A.2 and A.3 to
under imprisonment for life each for the offence punishable
under Section 3 (2) (v) of the SCs and STs (PoA)
Amendment Act, 2015 and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each in
default of payment of fine, they were sentenced to suffer
simple imprisonment for a period of three months each (for
each of the accused). All the sentences imposed against
A.1 to A.3 were directed to run concurrently.
The learned Special Sessions Judge sentenced A.5 to
pay fine of Rs.500/- + Rs.5,00/-+Rs.500/-, total Rs.1,500/-
, for the offence punishable under Section 6 (1) (i) of the
Poisons Act, 1919 in default to suffer simple imprisonment
for a period of one month each.
Challenging the convictions and sentences recorded
by the learned Special Sessions Judge, the respective
Criminal Appeals are preferred by the appellants-A.1 to A.3.
11
KSRJ & SRKJ
CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024
7. Heard Sri C.Nageswara Rao, learned senior
counsel appearing for Sri V.Uday Kumar, learned counsel
for the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.207 of 2024; Smt.
A.Swarupa Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant in
Criminal Appeal No.551 of 2024 and Sri Kakumanu Joji
Amrutha Raju, learned counsel for the appellant in
Criminal Appeal No.195 of 2024, and Sri Marri Venkata
Ramana, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing
for the respondent-State.
8. The learned senior counsel Sri C.Nageswara Rao
submitted that the learned Special Sessions Judge
conducted trial in a hurried manner, and a fair opportunity
has not been given to the accused to defend their case,
thereby depriving them of their valuable right, and
completed trial in less than a month, without affording
sufficient opportunity to the accused. He further submitted
that some witnesses were examined by the learned Special
Sessions Judge in the absence of A.1 to A.4, without
ensuring presence of A.1 to A.4 and without they being
produced from the Jail and without dispensing with their
12
KSRJ & SRKJ
CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024
presence. It is his submission that the said procedure
adopted by the learned Special Sessions Judge amounted
to incurable illegality and caused great prejudice to the
accused and it vitiates the trial. He submits that on this
ground alone, the convictions and sentences recorded by the
learned Special Sessions Judge are liable to be set aside. The
other counsel appearing for the other appellants too
concurred with the submissions of the learned senior counsel.
9. On the other hand, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for respondent-State submitted that
since the appellants were tried as under trial prisoners, the
learned Special Sessions Judge is right in completing the trial
without any delay, and there is no irregularity as the
appellants were provided sufficient opportunity to defend
their case. He further submits that the appellants have not
raised any objection regarding the hasty completion of trial or
denial of fair trial, and hence, at this stage, it is not open to
them to contend so, and in view of the consistent evidence on
record, the learned Special Sessions Judge rightly convicted
and sentenced the appellants, and hence, there are no
13
KSRJ & SRKJ
CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024
grounds to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment passed
by the learned Special Sessions Judge.
10. Perused the record. It is the main contention
of the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants
that trial was conducted in a hurried manner and
sometimes, witnesses were examined in the absence of
production of the appellants before the Court from jail, and
it caused prejudice and grave injustice to the appellants
and they were denied of their right to fair trial. A perusal
of the record goes to show that in this case, A.1 to A.4 were
tried as under-trial prisoners. We have perused the copies of
Order-sheets recorded by the trial Court in the aforesaid
Sessions Case. A perusal of the same would go to show that
on 13.07.2023, the learned Special Sessions Judge directed to
issue summons to accused and posted the case to
27.07.2023. On 27.07.2023, being the day of first
appearance, it was recorded thus:
“A1 to A4 produced from District Jail, Eluru. A5 and A6
present. Copies of case record are furnished to accused
u/s.207 of CrPC. Sri BPCHS filed memo of appearance
for A5 and A6. For hearing on charges and remand
extended till 02.08.2023.”
14
KSRJ & SRKJ
CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024
From 27.07.2023, the Sessions Case was posted to
02.08.2023 for hearing on charges. On 02.08.2023, it was
recorded thus:
“A.1 to A.4 are produced from District Jail, Eluru. A5 and
A6 are present. They are examined U/s 228 (2) of Cr.P.C.
Charges U/Sec. 120-B, 341, 326-A, 302 r/w 34 of IPC and
Sec.3 (2) (va), 3 (2) (v) of SC ST (POA) Act are framed, read
over and explained to them in Telugu. They pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried. The following schedule is
fixed for trial. LWs.1 to 4 -16.08.2023; LWs 5 to 8-
17.08.2023; LWs.9 to 12-18.08.2023; LWs 13 to 16-
21.08.2023; LWs.17 to 20-22.08.2023; LWs 21 to 24-
23.08.2023; LWs 25 to 28-24.08.2023; LWs 29 to 32-
25.08.2023; LWs 33 to 37-28.08.2023. Issue proceedings
and issue notices to witnesses. Call on 16.08.2023.”
From a perusal of the aforesaid orders, it is manifest that
no advocate represented A.1 to A.4 on 27.07.2023, on which
day, the Sessions Case was posted to 02.08.2023 ‘for hearing
on charges’. On 02.08.2023 also, when the matter was
posted ‘for hearing on charges’, no defence counsel
represented A.1 to A.4 nor any legal aid counsel was
appointed to represent A.1 to A.4. Having posted the matter
‘for hearing on charges’ to 02.08.2023, it is also not clear from
the Order dated 02.08.2023, whether an opportunity of
15
KSRJ & SRKJ
CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024
hearing was provided to the accused to put forth hearing on
framing of charges. Without the accused being represented by
their counsel, charges were framed against the accused on
02.08.2023, trial schedule was fixed and the case was posted
to 16.8.2023.
11. On 16.08.2023, the order recorded thus:
“A.1 to A.4 produced from District Jail. A.5 and A.6
present. Sri GPD filed memo of appearance of A.1. Sri
KNCHSB filed memo of appearance for A.2. P.W.1 and
P.W.2 examined. Ex.P1 to P3 exhibited. The evidence of
L.W.2 is given up by APP. R.E. till 17.08.2023.”
From a perusal of the aforesaid order, it is manifest that
Memos of Appearance were filed on behalf of A.1 and A.2 only,
on 16.08.2023. It is not clear whether any Memo of
Appearance was filed on behalf of A.3 and A.4 nor any legal
aid counsel was appointed to defend them. Without there
being any such steps, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined by the
learned Special Sessions Judge and the matter was posted to
the next day i.e. 17.08.2023, for further evidence.
12. A perusal of Order dated 17.08.2023 shows that
Memo of Appearance was filed for A.3. It is not clear from the
16
KSRJ & SRKJ
CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024
said Order also, as to whether any Memo of Appearance was
filed on behalf of A.4. On that day, the matter was adjourned
to 18.08.2023. On 18.08.2023, it is recorded that A.1 to A.4
were produced from District Jail; A.5 and A.6 present; P.Ws.4
to 7 examined; Ex.P6 marked. R.E. till 21.08.2023. It is not
clear from the said Order also, as to whether any Memo of
Appearance was filed on behalf of A.4.
13. Order dated 21.08.2023 shows that P.W.8 to
P.W.10 examined; the evidence of L.W.11 is given up by APP;
A.1 to A.4 not produced; A.5 and A.6 present; R.E. till
22.08.2023. A perusal of the said order makes it clear that
on 21.08.2023, A.1 to A.4 were not present in the Court. It is
not clear from the said order as to whether presence of A.1 to
A.4 was secured through video conferencing. Therefore,
P.Ws.8 to 10 were examined on 21.08.2023 in the absence of
the accused. It is not clear from the said Order also, as to
whether any Memo of Appearance was filed on behalf of A.4.
14. From a perusal of the Order dated 22.08.2023, it
is clear that A.1 to A.4 were produced from jail and A.5 and
A.6 were present; P.Ws.11 to 14 were examined and Exs.P5 to
17
KSRJ & SRKJ
CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024
P11 and M.Os.5 and 6 were exhibited; remand extended till
23.08.2023. The order dated 23.08.2023 also reflects that
A.1 to A.4 produced from District Jail, Eluru; A.5 and A.6
present; P.W.15 to P.W.17 were examined; Exs.P12 to P22
and M.O.7 were exhibited; R.E. till 24.08.2023. Even from
the said Order also, it is not clear as to whether any Memo of
Appearance was filed on behalf of A.4.
15. On 24.08.2023, it is recorded that A.1 to A.4 were
produced through web conference by blue jeans; A.5 and A.6
present; P.Ws.18 to 21 were examined and Exs.P23 to P34
were exhibited; R.E. till 25.08.2024.
16. On 25.08.2023, it is recorded that A.1 to A.4 not
produced; A.5 and A.6 present; P.Ws.22 to 24 were examined
and Exs.P35 to P42 were exhibited; remand extended till
28.08.2023. On 28.08.2023, it is recorded that A.1 to A.4
were not produced; A.5 and A.6 present; P.W.25 examined
and Exs.P43 to P54 and M.Os.11 to 16 were marked; R.E. till
29.08.2023. On 29.08.2023, it is recorded that A.1 to A.4
were not produced; A.5 and A.6 present; P.Ws.26 to 28 were
examined and Exs.P55 to P61 and M.O.17 were exhibited;
R.E. till 30.08.2023.
18
KSRJ & SRKJ
CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024
17. A perusal of the said orders makes it clear that on
25.08.2023, 28.08.2023 and 29.08.2023, A.1 to A.4 were not
present in the Court. It is not clear from the said orders as to
whether A.1 to A.4 were produced through video conferencing.
Therefore, P.Ws.22 to 28 were examined on the respective
dates as mentioned above, in the absence of the accused. It
is not clear from the said Order also, as to whether any Memo
of Appearance was filed on behalf of A.4.
18. A perusal of the Orders dated 30.08.2023 and
31.08.2023, it is clear that A.1 to A.4 were produced from jail;
A.5 and A.6 were present; P.W.26 was examined and Exs.P62
to P98 and M.Os.18 to 27 were marked. On 01.09.2023, it is
recorded that A.1 to A.4 were produced from jail and A.5 and
A.6 were present; P.W.25 was recalled and examined and
Exs.P99 to P104 were marked; Prosecution side evidence was
closed. It is not clear from the said Order also, as to whether
any Memo of Appearance was filed on behalf of A.4.
19. The accused were examined under Section 313
CrPC on 05.09.2023. On 11.09.2023, petition filed under
Section 315 CrPC was filed. On 12.09.2023, the said petition
19
KSRJ & SRKJ
CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024
was allowed and A.1 was examined as D.W.1 and submitted
separate statement. Defence evidence was closed. For
arguments, the case was posted to 20.09.2023.
20. A perusal of the aforesaid proceedings before the
learned Special Sessions Judge goes to show that on
02.08.2023, when the Sessions Case was posted ‘for hearing
on charges’, no defence counsel represented A.1 to A.4 nor
any legal aid counsel was appointed to represent A.1 to A.4.
Having posted the matter ‘for hearing on charges’ to
02.08.2023, it is the bounden duty of the Presiding Officer to
give sufficient time to the accused to engage their counsel and
to inform the accused that they have right to be defended by
an Advocate, and in case the accused failed to engage their
counsel, the Presiding Officer has to take steps to appoint a
legal aid counsel to defend the accused. But, such course of
action was not followed by the learned Special Sessions
Judge. It is also evident from the aforesaid proceedings
recorded by the learned Special Sessions Judge that P.Ws.22
to 28 were examined on the respective dates as mentioned
above, in the absence of the accused.
20
KSRJ & SRKJ
CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024
21. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision
of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Naveen alias Ajay v. State of
Madhya Pradesh1 wherein it is held thus: (paragraphs 14 &
16)
“14. In the case of Anokhilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh
(AIR 2020 SC 232), this Court, after referring to Best
Bakery (supra) on the issue, has held in paragraphs 21 to
23 as follows:–
“21. In the present case, the Amicus Curiae, was
appointed on 19.02.2013, and on the same date,
the counsel was called upon to defend the
accused at the stage of framing of charges. One
can say with certainty that the Amicus Curiae
did not have sufficient time to go through even
the basic documents, nor the advantage of any
discussion or interaction with the accused, and
time to reflect over the matter. Thus, even before
the Amicus Curiae could come to grips of the
matter, the charges were framed.
22. The provisions concerned viz. Sections 227
and 228 of the Code contemplate framing of
charge upon consideration of the record of the
case and the documents submitted herewith,
and after ‘hearing the submissions of the
accused and the prosecution in that behalf’. If
the hearing for the purposes of these provisions
is to be meaningful, and not just a routine affair,
the right under the said provisions stood denied
to the appellant.
23. In our considered view, the Trial Court on its
own, ought to have adjourned the matter for
some time so that the Amicus Curiae could have
had the advantage of sufficient time to prepare
the matter. The approach adopted by the Trial
Court, in our view, may have expedited the1
AIR 2023 SC 5254
21
KSRJ & SRKJ
CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024conduct of trial, but did not further the cause of
justice. Not only were the charges framed the
same day as stated above, but the trial itself
was conducted within a fortnight thereafter. In
the process, the assistance that the appellant
was entitled to in the form of legal aid, could not
be real and meaningful.”
15. This Court, in Anokhilal (supra), also set aside the
conviction and sentenced imposed by the Trial Court and
the High Court and directed for de novo trial. This Court
also laid down certain norms in matters where the
accused is represented by a counsel appointed through
legal aid. The norms, as stated in paragraph 31 of the
said judgment are reproduced hereunder:–
“31.1 xxx
31.2 xxx
31.3 Whenever any learned counsel is appointed
as Amicus Curiae, some reasonable time may be
provided to enable the counsel to prepare the
matter. There cannot be any hard and fast rule
in that behalf. However, a minimum of seven
days’ time may normally be considered to be
appropriate and adequate.
16. It was further observed that there can be no
analytical, all-comprehensive or exhaustive definition of
the concept of a fair trial, and it may have to be
determined in seemingly infinite variety of actual
situations with the ultimate object in mind viz. whether
something that was done or said either before or at the
trial deprived the quality of fairness to a degree where a
miscarriage of justice has resulted. Each one has an
inbuilt right to be dealt with fairly in a criminal trial.
Denial of a fair trial is as much injustice to the accused
22
KSRJ & SRKJ
CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024
as is to the victim and the society. Fair trial obviously
would mean a trial before an impartial judge, a fair
prosecutor, and the atmosphere of judicial calm. Fair
trial means a trial in which bias or prejudice for or
against the accused, the witnesses, or the cause which is
being tried is eliminated. It is inherent in the concept of
due process of law, that condemnation should be
rendered only after the trial in which the hearing is a real
one, not sham or a mere farce and pretence. Since fair
hearing requires an opportunity to preserve the process,
it may be vitiated and violated by an overhasty, stage-
managed, tailored and partisan trial. It is thus settled
that a hasty trial in which proper and sufficient
opportunity has not been provided to the accused to
defend himself/herself would vitiate the trial as being
meaningless & stage-managed. It is in violation of the
principle of judicial calm.”
22. There cannot be dispute with regard to the
proposition of law that the procedural requirements, which
ensure fairness in trial, must be adhered to strictly. A hasty
trial in which proper and sufficient opportunity has not been
provided to the accused to defend himself would vitiate the
trial as being meaningless and stage-managed, which is in
violation of the principle of judicial calm.
23
KSRJ & SRKJ
CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024
23. In the case on hand, trial started on 16.08.2023
and ended on 12.09.2023. During the said period, as many
as 29 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution
and as many as 104 documents and 27 material objects were
marked. During the said period, A.1 examined himself as
D.W.1. Coming to framing of charges, as contemplated
under Sections 227 and 228 CrPC, framing of charges is upon
consideration of the record of the case and the documents
submitted therewith and after ‘hearing submissions of the
accused and the prosecution in that behalf’. The learned
Special Sessions Judge posted the case from 27.07.2023 to
02.08.2023 for hearing on charges. It is evident from the
Order dated 02.08.2023, neither any counsel appeared on
behalf of the accused nor any legal aid counsel was appointed
to defend the accused and submit hearing nor any hearing
took place on framing of charges on that day. The learned
Special Sessions Judge ought to have afforded an opportunity
to the accused to engage a counsel, instead of proceeding with
framing of charges without hearing the accused. Further,
the learned Special Sessions Judge ought to have ensured
presence of A.1 to A.4, either physically or virtually, on the
24
KSRJ & SRKJ
CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024
date of examination of some of the witnesses viz. P.Ws.22 to
28, on the relevant dates mentioned supra. A fair trial has
to be determined in seemingly infinite variety of actual
situations with the ultimate object in mind viz. whether
something that was done or said either before or at the trial
deprived the quality of fairness to a degree where a
miscarriage of justice has resulted. As observed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Naveen alias Ajay v. State of
Madhya Pradesh case (1 supra), the principle of ‘judicial calm’
in the context of a fair trial needs to be elaborated for its
observance in letter and spirit. The Hon’ble Apex Court also
observed that trial has been conducted on day-to-day basis
wherein the accused, who was in jail and defended by a
counsel from legal aid, was compelled by the trial Court to
produce defence witness of his own in one day. In the case
on hand, the irregularities or infringements during trial would
certainly cause prejudice to the accused and as a result the
same would vitiate the trial. Hence, the convictions and
sentences recorded by the learned Special Sessions Judge in
the impugned judgment are liable to be set aside, and ends of
justice would be met, if the matter is remanded for
25
KSRJ & SRKJ
CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024
conducting de novo trial by affording proper opportunity to
the accused to defend themselves.
24. In the result, the Criminal Appeals are allowed.
The judgment dated 11.10.2023 in Sessions Case No.49 of
2023 on the file of the Special Judge for trial of cases under
the SCs and STs (PoA) Act, 1989-cum-VIII Additional
District and Sessions Judge, West Godavari at Eluru is set
aside. The matter is remitted back to the trial Court for de
novo trial by affording sufficient opportunity to the accused
to defend their case in a proper perspective. It is needless
to mention here that remanding the matter back would
eventually be status quo ante from the stage of hearing the
accused on framing of charges. The learned Special
Sessions Judge is directed to dispose of the subject
Sessions Case within a period of six months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
25. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel Sri
C.Nageswara Rao that an application has been filed seeking
bail by the appellants, but the learned Special Sessions
26
KSRJ & SRKJ
CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024
Judge, instead of disposing of the same, went ahead in
conducting trial, and hence, a direction be given to the trial
Court to dispose of the bail application. It is pertinent to
mention here that when the learned Special Sessions Judge
has not taken up the bail application of the accused, it is
not known as to why the accused have not preferred a
petition seeking bail in a higher forum. Irrespective of the
same, the learned Special Sessions Judge is directed to
dispose of the bail application initially, on merits, in
accordance with law.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the
Criminal Appeals shall stand closed.
_____________________________
JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY
__________________________________
JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
26.12.2024
DRK
27
KSRJ & SRKJ
CrlA No.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 & 551 of 2024
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
COMMON JUDGMENT
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.195 of 2024, 207 of 2024 &
551 of 2024
26.12.2024
DRK