The Supreme Court has overturned the death sentence of a man accused of murdering his wife and daughter, citing fundamental violations of his right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta found serious procedural lapses in the trial that deprived the accused of a proper defense. The Court noted that the defendant’s legal representation was inconsistent, with multiple changes in counsel, inadequate preparation time, and key prosecution witnesses going unchallenged due to the absence of defense counsel. Furthermore, the accused’s statements were not properly recorded, and the trial court failed to ensure that his representation was “effective and meaningful.”
Highlighting that the mere appointment of a legal aid lawyer does not satisfy the right to legal representation, the Court referred to its ruling in Anokhilal v. State of M.P. (2019), reinforcing that a fair trial demands competent legal defense. The bench questioned whether the accused’s case was properly argued, whether prosecution witnesses were sufficiently cross-examined, and whether all reasonable doubts were explored. The rushed proceedings, including a last-minute change of counsel before the case was reserved for judgment, led the Court to conclude that the death penalty in this instance was untenable.
The ruling also drew on international legal principles, referencing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the Rome Statute, all of which emphasize the right to a fair trial—even for those accused of the gravest crimes. The Court underscored that capital punishment demands the highest level of procedural fairness to uphold the integrity of the justice system.
With these findings, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction and death sentence, ordering a fresh trial from the stage of framing charges.