Chennai: Holding that speedy trial is not aimed only in favour of the accused, but equally in favour of victims and the society at large, the Madras High Court has upheld the life sentence awarded to an accused, who under the pretext of engaging a lawyer to defend him prolonged the trial for more than one year and engaged a counsel only at the fag end of the trial and thereafter claimed that the trial was vitiated.
Holding that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, a division bench comprising Justices M. Jaichandran and S. Nagamuthu, dismissed an appeal from the accused Suresh Kumar, challenging the life sentence awarded by Principal sessions judge, Namakkal.
The bench however, considering the economic status of the accused reduced the fine amount from Rs 2.20 lakh to Rs 18,000. According to prosecution, even after settlement of property, Suresh Kumar allegedly picked up quarrel with his elder brother and their father demanding more property.
On April 6, 2009, he came to the jewellery shop, run by his elder brother, situated in the ground floor of a house in Namakkal, in which his elder brother and his wife and daughter were staying in the first floor. He poured petrol on his elder brother and into the shop and threw a lighted match stick into the shop. The fire engulfed the entire house, in which one Dhandapani, an employee of his elder brother died. His elder brother, their father and the two women sustained grievous injuries. A case was registered and Suresh Kumar was arrested on May 1, 2009.
Suresh Kumar’s counsel contended that none of the witnesses were cross examined by the accused for want of legal assistance. Legal assistance to an accused facing a serious offence of murder was a fundamental right forming part of the fair procedure contemplated under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, the case should be remitted back to the trial court so as to afford fair opportunity to the accused to engage a counsel and to cross examine the witnesses, he added.
The bench said there was no denial of fair trial to the accused at all. He was afforded fair opportunity, which was real and not fanciful to engage a counsel to defend himself for more than one year and then, after the commencement of trial, for four months, he did not utilize the opportunities afforded to him to engage a counsel. When the court appointed a very seasoned counsel with experience of more than three decades to defend him, he did not permit him to do the case. “When it was so refused, it is no obligation of the court to force a counsel upon him. Thus, we conclude that in this case, there is no violation of fair procedure contemplated under Article 21 of the Constitution”, the bench added.
