Summary of the Judgment
Case Name: Sunita Devi vs. The State of Bihar & Anr.
Date: 17 May 2024
Judges: Honorable Justice M. M. Sundresh
Advocates: For Appellant: Mr. Vikas Singh, For Respondents: Mr. C. U. Singh
Acts and Sections: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Indian Evidence Act
Cited Judgements: J. Jayalalithaa v. State of Karnataka Rattiram v. State of M.P. Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat Mohd. Hussain v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) State of Haryana v. Ram Mehar Talab Haji Hussain v. Madhukar Purshottam Mondkar
Introduction
The Supreme Court of India’s recent judgment in Sunita Devi vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. has once again brought to the forefront the critical importance of ensuring a fair trial within the framework of Indian criminal jurisprudence. Delivered on 17 May 2024 by Honorable Justice M. M. Sundresh, this judgment delves into essential aspects of procedural law, emphasizing the significance of adherence to established norms to safeguard the rights of the accused, the victim, and the society at large.
The case highlights the ongoing challenges within the judicial system, particularly concerning the use of modern technologies such as video conferencing and their impact on the administration of justice. It also reaffirms the fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution of India, 1950, and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ensuring that justice is not only done but seen to be done.
Background
The case revolves around the appellant, Sunita Devi, challenging the remittal order passed by the Division Bench of the Patna High Court. The High Court directed the Trial Court to conduct a de novo trial while making adverse observations against the conduct of the Special Judge. Criminal Appeal Nos. 3926-3927 of 2023 were filed by the Special Judge, contesting the remarks made by the High Court, and Criminal Appeal No. 3925 of 2023 was filed by the same Judge seeking reconsideration of his role in holding sessions trials.
Fair Trial and Procedural Safeguards
A central theme of the judgment is the emphasis on the right to a fair trial, a cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence. Honorable Justice M. M. Sundresh underscored that a fair trial is not merely a procedural formality but a substantive right enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950. He stated, "A fair trial is the heart and soul of criminal jurisprudence. The principle of democracy lies in a fair trial. It is not only a statutory right but also a human right."
The judgment meticulously examined the procedural safeguards provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). Sections 207 and 208 of the CrPC, which mandate the supply of documents to the accused, were highlighted as essential for ensuring that the accused is well-informed about the evidence against them. The Court emphasized that non-compliance with these provisions can lead to a miscarriage of justice, thus underlining the necessity for strict adherence to procedural laws.
Video Conferencing in Judicial Proceedings
The judgment also delved into the Rules for Video Conferencing for Courts, 2020, framed by the High Court of Patna. Honorable Justice M. M. Sundresh pointed out that while video conferencing is a valuable tool for enhancing judicial efficiency, it should not be used to the detriment of a fair trial. He remarked, "While applying its mind, the Court has to rule out the possibility of any misuse."
Rule 6 of the Video Conferencing Rules provides a framework for applications seeking video conferencing. It mandates that such requests should be discussed with the other parties involved and that the Court must ensure the application is not intended to delay the proceedings. Rule 8 and Rule 11 outline the protocols for examining persons in custody and conducting judicial remands via video conferencing, respectively. These rules stress the need for privacy and adequate opportunity for the accused to consult their counsel.
Witness Protection and Fair Trial
In addressing the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, the judgment underscored the importance of protecting witnesses to ensure they can testify without fear or favor. The scheme, which includes provisions for a threat analysis report by the head of the police, aims to safeguard the integrity of the judicial process. Honorable Justice M. M. Sundresh asserted, "A fair trial would include due compliance of the procedure with adequate opportunities for all the stakeholders."
The judgment cited several precedents, including J. Jayalalithaa v. State of Karnataka, which emphasized that a fair trial must cater to the interests of the accused, the victim, and society. The Court in Rattiram v. State of M.P. further elucidated that non-compliance with procedural safeguards must result in substantial prejudice to warrant a retrial.
Expeditious and Fair Trial
While advocating for a speedy trial, the judgment highlighted the delicate balance between expediting proceedings and ensuring fairness. Citing Mohd. Hussain v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), the Court noted, "Speedy trial secures rights to an accused but does not preclude the rights of public justice."
The judgment also referred to State of Haryana v. Ram Mehar, which clarified that fairness in trial is not an abstract concept but a concrete principle that requires flexibility and adherence to established norms. Honorable Justice M. M. Sundresh emphasized that any attempt to expedite the trial must not come at the expense of fairness.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court's judgment in Sunita Devi vs. The State of Bihar & Anr. serves as a critical reminder of the fundamental principles that underpin the criminal justice system in India. By reaffirming the right to a fair trial, the necessity of procedural compliance, and the judicious use of video conferencing, the Court has reinforced the importance of justice being not only done but seen to be done.
This judgment is a significant contribution to the body of jurisprudence on fair trials and procedural safeguards, ensuring that the rights of the accused, the victim, and society are upheld. It stands as a testament to the Court's commitment to maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and protecting the rights enshrined in the Constitution of India.
Comments