Justice Mukta Gupta said that though the man was represented by a lawyer, the advocate had stopped appearing in the middle of the trial and as a result prosecution witnesses could not be cross-examined on his behalf.
The court said, "It was duty of the additional sessions judge to inform the appellant about his right to legal aid which is enshrined within the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India."
"The duty of the court does not end by offering a lawyer, the accused should be informed about the consequences and danger of waiver. The present case is not one where the appellant was offered a counsel at State expense which he refused," it further said.
It also noted that as he was not represented by a lawyer for most of the trial, he could not even file an application to recall the witnesses whose cross-examination was essential.
The man was convicted on July 27, 2001 and was awarded the sentence on August 3, 2001 for kidnapping and raping the girl.
According to the police, the girl's father had lodged a complaint on March 10, 1998, saying his daughter has been missing since March 9, 1998 and that he suspected that the appellant, who stayed nearby, had enticed her.
The girl was recovered on March 27, 1998 from Anand Vihar bus stand and shortly thereafter, the appellant was also arrested. On the basis of her statement, charges for kidnapping and rape were framed against him.
Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content
