LexMOHD. HUSSAIN @ JULFIKAR ALI versus THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012] 1 S.C.R. 64 MOHD. HUSSAIN @ JULFIKAR ALI v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT) DELHI (Criminal Appeal No. 1091 of 2006) JANUARY 11, 2012 [H.L. DATIU AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 3021307 - Explosives Substances Act, 1908 - s. 3 - Explosion in bus - Death of 4 persons and C 24 persons sustained serious injuries - Capital punishment - Conviction of appellant alongwith death sentence for offences ulss. 3021307 and s. 3 of the 1908 Act by the courts below - Challenged, on the ground that he was not given the assistance of a lawyer to defend himself during the trial - Held: o In view of difference of opinion as regards the issue whether the matter requires to be remanded for de novo trial of the appellant after giving him the assistance of a counsel, matter referred to the larger Bench. E An explosion took place inside a bus in which four passengers died and 24 persons sustained serious injuries. Investigations were carried out and on the basis of the information received suspicion arose as to involvement of the appellant, national of Pakistan in the incident. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to F death for commission of offences under Sections 302/307 IPC and Section 3 of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908 by the trial court. The trial court filed a Reference for confirmation of death sentence. The High Court allowed the Reference and dismissed the appeal filed by G the appellant. The appellant pleaded before the trial court as also the High Court that he was not given a fair and impartial trial and was denied the right of a counsel. During the H 64 MOHD. HUSSAIN @ JULFIKAR ALI v. STATE (GOVT. 65 OF NCT) DELHI committal proceedings before the Magistrate, the A appellant was assisted by counsel 'V' employed by the State. When the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, counsel 'F' was employed by the State to assist the appellant but he disappeared from the scene before the conclusion of the trial. The court did not B appoint any counsel to defend his case. Examination of 56 witnesses including the eye-witnesses and the investigating officer was done when accused was not represented by an advocate. None of the 56 witnesses were cross-examined by the appellant. During the last c stages of the trial a counsel was appointed. She filed an application to cross-examine only one of the prosecution witnesses and the same was allowed. Therefore, the appellant filed the instant appeal. Referring the matter to the larger Bench, the Court HELD: Per Dattu J: D 1.1. The records would disclose that during the committal proceedings before the Magistrate, the appellant was assisted by a counsel 'V' employed by the State. He continued till the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge. Before the said court, 'F' was F employed by the State to assist the appellant. He participated in the proceedings before the Sessions Judge only on few days of the trial. After he stopped attending the proceedings, that too at the fag end of the trial, another counsel was appointed to assist the G appellant. The record further discloses that immediately, on completion of the investigation, a charge .sheet punishable under Section 302/307/120-B of the IPC read with Section 3/4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act was filed in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate against the H 66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 1 S.C.R. A appellant and others by the prosecuting agency. After completing the necessary formalities, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions by the Metropolitan Magistrate. The Sessions Judge, after discharging the other accused persons, had framed charges against the B appellant under Section 302/307 of the IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act, to which, the a'lpellant denied his guilt and claimed to be tried. The appellant was initially assisted by a counsel employed by the Sessions Judge. However, in the mid way, the c counsel disappeared from the scene, that is, before conclusion of the trial. It is apparent from the records that he was not asked whether he is able to employ counsel or wished to have counsel appointed. When the parties were ready for the trial, no one appeared for the accused. 0 The Court did not appoint any counsel to defend the accused. Of course, if he had a defence counsel, it was not necessary for the court appointing anybody as a counsel. If he did not ha
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.