Facts of the Case
- Person Z was charged with robbery and faced criminal prosecution.
- Z was financially unable to hire legal assistance or a lawyer.
- Despite this, Z was convicted by the court.
Issues in the Case
- Whether the conviction is sustainable if the accused did not have legal representation due to financial constraints?
- Does the accused have a constitutional right to free legal aid in criminal cases?
- What is the effect of denial or absence of legal assistance on the fairness and validity of the trial?
Principles Associated with It
- Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, every person has the right to a fair trial and due process of law.
- The Supreme Court of India has held in cases like Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary that legal aid is a fundamental right for indigent accused persons in criminal trials.
- The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 provides for free legal services to persons who cannot afford it.
- Denial of legal assistance in serious criminal cases, especially those involving imprisonment, violates the right to a fair trial and due process.
- Courts must ensure that accused persons are given opportunity and facilities to defend themselves adequately.
Judgement
- The conviction of Z is not sustainable if it is established that Z was denied legal aid or representation due to financial inability.
- The trial would be considered unfair and violative of constitutional rights if legal assistance was not provided or facilitated.
- Z must be provided with free legal aid and, if necessary, a retrial or appeal should be granted.
- Thus, the judgement of conviction should be reviewed or set aside on the grounds of violation of right to legal aid and fair trial.