NAVEEN @ AJAY versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2023] 14 S.C.R. 977 · Decided: 19-10-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 977 : 2023 INSC 936
977
CASE DETAILS
NAVEEN @ AJAY
v. 
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 489-490 of 2019)
OCTOBER 19, 2023 
[B. R. GAVAI, PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA AND 
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether appellant was aff orded a fair trial; 
whether he was deprived of his valuable legal rights. 
Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 – Appellant was convicted and sentenced 
for committing rape and murder of 3 months old girl child – His death 
sentence was confi rmed by the High Court – Appellant contended that 
the entire trial was completed within a span of 15 days and appellant 
was not aff orded a fair trial – Propriety:
Held: The Order-sheet would clearly indicate that the trial was 
conducted in a hurried manner without providing ample and proper 
opportunity to the defence counsel, who was engaged through legal aid, 
to prepare himself eff ectively – It is also to be noted that copies of DNA 
Report, FSL Report and Viscera Report were not submitted along with 
the charge-sheet and were presented before the Court during the course 
of trial – When the reports were challenged by the accused before the 
High Court, it was brushed aside by observing that even if the authors of 
the reports were not called for evidence, in terms of Section 293 Cr.P.C., 
the reports are not open to question as the defence had an opportunity to 
cross-examine the authors of the reports during the trial – High Court was 
not correct in saying that the defence had an opportunity to cross-examine 
the experts – 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 – It was impossible for the accused himself to 
produce doctors, the authors of the Reports (Ex.P-72), in one day because 
978 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
the said experts are government servants and could not have attended the 
Court at the request of an accused in jail – There was no opportunity, in 
the real sense, to the appellant to cross-examine the experts – Therefore, 
the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court and 
affi  rmed by the High Court is set aside and the matter is remitted back 
to the trial court for de novo trial by aff ording proper opportunity to the 
appellant to defend himself. [Paras 8, 10, 21, 22]
Criminal Trial – Fair Trial – Defi nition of:
Held: There can be no analytical, all-comprehensive or exhaustive 
defi nition of the concept of a fair trial, and it may have to be determined 
in seemingly infi nite 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 
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 suffi  cient 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. [Para 16]
Principle/Doctrine – Judicial Calm – Discussed. [Paras 16, 17]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Bashira vs. State of U.P. AIR 1968 SC 1313 : [1969] SCR 32; Zahira 
Habibulla H. Sheikh & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors (2004) 4 SCC 158 
: [2004] 3 SCR 1050; Anokhilal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019) 20 
979
SCC 196: Rahul v. State of Delhi, Ministry of Home Aff airs & Anr (2023) 1 
SCC 83; Manoj & Ors. Vs. State of M.P (2023) 2 SCC 353: Anil @ Anthony 
Arikswamy Joseph Vs. State of Maharashtra (2014) 4 SCC 69 : [2014] 3 
SCR 34 – relied on.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
OR

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.