INTRODUCTION

Right to Fair Trial is a key role of any government to maintain law and order on behalf of the
whole society; to hold people to account for crimes they have committed and to ensure that
justice is done and seen to be done. But this carries with it a grave responsibility, because
convicting someone of a criminal offence and potentially taking away a persons liberty is one of
the most serious steps any government can take against an individual. This step can only be
justified after the person has been given a Fair Trial.
The Right to a Fair Trial means that people can be sure that processes will be fair and certain. It
prevents governments from abusing their powers. A Fair Trial is the best means of separating the
guilty from the innocent and protecting against injustice. Without this right, the rule of law and
public faith in the justice system collapse. The Right to a Fair Trial is one of the cornerstones of a
just society.
In response to the horrors of the Second World War, the United Nations was formed and set out
the fundamental rights of human beings in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The
Right to a Fair Trial was at its heart:
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and
impartial tribunal, in the determination of any criminal charge against him.
The international community proclaimed the Right to a Fair Trial to be a foundation of freedom,
justice and peace in the world.
The Right to a Fair Trial is recognized internationally as a fundamental human right and
countries are required to respect it. Different countries have developed different ways of doing
this, but regardless of how a particular legal system operates, the principles below are core to all
fair justice systems and they all form part of the Right to a Fair Trial.
The right to fair trial is an essential right in all countries respecting the rule of law. The essential
ingredients for a fair and just trial must include a competent , neutral and detached judge ; the
absence of any intimidation of witnesses and equal legal representation , such as a right to
counsel for criminal defendants.
Thus, in a democratic society even the rights of the accused are sacrosanct, though accused of an
offence, he does not become a non-person. In the leading case of 1Kishore Singh Ravinder Dev
v. State of Rajasthan, it was said that the laws of India i.e. Constitutional, Evidentiary and
procedural have made elaborate provisions for safeguarding the rights of accused with the view
to protect his (accused) dignity as a human being and giving him benefits of a just, fair and
impartial trail.
1 1981 AIR 625, 1981 SCR (1) 995

FAIR TRIAL AS A RULE OF LAW

Same as India, every other countries are also governed by the Rule of Law, every person is
subject to the same laws and no one, however rich or powerful, is above the law. This basic
principle is crucial to the Right to a Fair Trial.
The Rule of Law means that our actions are only criminal if they are prohibited by laws that have
been made publicly following a proper process. This gives people clarity about what is and is not
permitted in society, and avoids arbitrary punishment. The Rule of Law means new criminal laws
can only apply to future actions and cannot have retrospective effect. Therefore, if your actions
are not prohibited when you do them they are not unlawful.
This principle also creates a level playing field and ensures equality. The Rule of Law requires
criminal laws to be enforced in a uniform way. For some suspects, this can mean that special
measures are needed to give them a Fair Chance to Present a Defense. Non-nationals, for
example, may need interpretation and children may need additional support so that they can
participate effectively in the trial. Impartial and independent courts are at the heart of the Right to
a Fair Trial . This ensures that those deciding whether a person has committed a criminal offence
are neutral and are making a fair assessment of the facts.
While the Right to a Fair Trial exists to minimize mistakes, no justice system always produces
the right outcome. For this reason people must have the right of appeal to a higher court. This is
needed to redress injustice and to uphold societys faith in the integrity of the justice system. It is
also fundamental for ensuring consistency, fairness and uniform interpretation of the law.
Rule of Law, Fair Trial and Human Security
Human security cannot be realized without the rule of law and fair trial. The principles of rule of
law and fair trial contribute to ones security in personal life as it guarantees that nobody is
persecuted and arrested arbitrarily, that everyone is entitled to a fair court hearing and an
independent and impartial judge. Fairness in court proceedings shall lead to justice and the
confidence of the citizens in a predictable jurisdiction.
Furthermore, a strong judicial system helps to keep crime rates and corruption low, thus
contributing to freedom from fear. In post- conflict situations, it is especially important to reestablish the rule of law and the right to fair trial in order to enhance human security through
legal security, the administration of justice and good governance. These are the means by which
citizens will regain confidence and trust in the state and its authorities.
With regard to economic confidence and development, too, investment security strongly depends
on a functioning administrative and judicial system. Hence, economic growth and social welfare
which correspond to freedom from want, i.e. social and economic security, are also dependent on
the rule of law and fair.

FAIR TRIAL IN RESPECT OF RIGHT TO LIBERTY

No one shall be deprived of his life or personel liberty except according to procedure
established by law. -Article 21 of Constitution of India
Liberty is central to what it means to be human and is a basic human right in itself. It is also at
the heart of the right to a fair trial because, in most countries, imprisonment (the deprivation of
liberty) is the ultimate criminal sanction. This punishment can only be justified after a fair legal
process.
The start of criminal proceedings is often marked by police arrest. This temporary loss of liberty
may be entirely justified and authorized by law, but arbitrary arrests have long been a feature of
dictatorships and remain common today. To protect against this, people taken into custody must
be given reasons for their arrest and be taken promptly before a court. The right for detainees to
test the legality of their detention in court (sometimes known as Habeas Corpus) is also an
important safeguard against torture.
Extended periods of pre-trial detention are also common for people that have not been convicted
of any criminal offence, many of whom will ultimately be cleared of any wrongdoing. This can
be justified to ensure vital evidence is preserved or to protect witnesses but if not strictly
necessary, pre-trial detention violates the right to liberty and the presumption of innocence.
People also have a right to be tried without undue delay to minimize pre-trial detention and
reduce the human impact of criminal proceedings.
Arrest involves restriction of liberty of a person arrested and therefore, infringes the basic human
rights of liberty. Nevertheless the Constitution of India as well as International human rights law
recognize the power of the State to arrest any person as a part of its primary role of maintaining
law and order. The Constitution requires a just, fair and reasonable procedure established by law
under which alone such deprivation of liberty is permissible.
Although Article 22(1) of the Constitution provides that every person placed under arrest shall be
informed as soon as may be the ground of arrest and shall not be denied the right to consult and
be defended by a lawyer of his choice, also S.41(D) of Cr.pc. S.50 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) requires a police officer arresting any person to forthwith
communicate to him full particulars of the offence for which he is arrested or other grounds for
such arrest. In actual practice these requirements are observed more in the breach.
In general, it may be said that inhuman treatment as referred to in Article 21 pertains to a lower
intensity of disregard for human dignity. While the prohibition of torture and other cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment covers specific attacks on personal integrity 2 and
2 This would include, for example, acts that cause mental suffering. It would also include
prolonged solitary Confinement. See Human Rights Committee General comment

applies to all persons, whether in any form of detention or not the States cannot invoke a lack of
adequate material resources or financial difficulties as justification for inhuman treatment and are
obliged to provide detainees and prisoners with services that will satisfy their essential needs.
For instance, detainees have a right to food, to clothing,3 to adequate medical attention and to
communicate with their families.

Right to free legal aid

The right to be defended by a legal practitioner, flowing from Article 22 (1) of the Constitution
has further been fortified by the introduction liberty.
Article 39 A of the Constitution by the 42nd Amendment Act of 1976 and enactment of subsection 1 of Section 304 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Legal assistance to a poor person
facing trial whose life and personal liberty is in jeopardy is mandated not only by the
Constitution and the Code of Criminal Procedure but also by International Covenants and
Human Rights Declarations.
A large number of complaints pertaining to Human Rights violations are in the area of abuse of
police powers, particularly those of arrest and detention. It has, therefore, become necessary,
with a view to narrowing the gap between law and practice, to prescribe guidelines regarding
arrest even while at the same time not unduly curtailing the power of the police to effectively
maintain and enforce law and order and proper investigation and personal liberty. The object and
purpose of providing competent legal aid to undefended and unrepresented accused persons are
to see that the accused gets free and fair, just and reasonable trial of charge in a criminal case.
In the case of D.K. Basu vs. state of West Bengal4 supreme court laid down guidelines for the
rights of accused by the Honble Supreme Court:
(i) The police personnel carrying out the arrest and handling the interrogation of the arrestee
should bear accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags with their designations. The
particulars of all such police personnel who handle interrogation of the arrestee should bear
accurate, visible and clear identification and name tags with their designation. The particular of
all such personnel who handle interrogation of the arrestee must be recorded in a register.
(ii) That the police officer carrying out the arrest shall prepare a memo of arrest at the time of
arrest and such memo shall be attested by at least one witness, who may be either a member of
the family of the arrestee or a respectable person of the locality from where the arrest is made. It
shall also be counter signed by the arrestee and shall contain the time and date of arrest.
3The prison act 1894.sec 31
4 (1997) 1 SCC 416

(iii) A person who has been arrested or detained and is being held in custody in a police station or
interrogation centre or other lock up, shall be entitled to have one friend or relative or other
person known to him or having interest in his welfare being informed, as soon as practicable, that
he has been arrested and is being detained at the particular place, unless the attesting witness of
the memo of arrest is himself such a friend or a relative of the arrestee.
(iv) The time, place of arrest and venue of custody of an arrestee must be notified by the police
where the next friend or relative of the arrestee lives outside the district or town through the
Legal Aids Organization in the District and the police station of the area concerned
telegraphically within a period of 8 to 12 hours after the arrest.
(v) The person arrested must be made aware of his right to have someone informed of his arrest
or detention as soon as he is put under arrest or is detained.
(vi) An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention regarding the arrest of the
person which shall also disclosed the name of the next friend of the person who has been
informed of the arrest and the names land particulars of the police officials in whose custody the
arrestee is.
(vii) The arrestee should, where he so request, be also examines at the time of his arrest and
major and minor injuries, if any present on his /her body, must be recorded at that time. The
Inspector Memo must be signed both by the arrestee and the police officer affecting the arrest
and its copy provided to the arrestee.
(viii) The arrestee should be subjected to medical examination by the trained doctor every 48
hours during his detention In custody by a doctor on the panel of approved doctor appointed by
Director, Health Services of the concerned State or Union Territory, Director, Health Services
should prepare such a panel for all Tehsils and Districts as well.
(ix) Copies of all the documents including the memo of arrest, referred to above, should be sent
to the Magistrate for his record.
(x) The arrestee may be permitted to meet his lawyer during interrogation, though not throughout
the interrogation.5
(xi) A police control room should be provided at all district 6 and State headquarters where
information regarding the arrest and the place of custody of the arrestee shall be communicated
by the officer causing the arrest, within 12 hours of effecting the arrest and at the police control
room it should be displayed on a conspicuous notice board.
5 Section 41(D) of Criminal Procedure code,1973
6 Section 41(C) of Criminal Procedure code,1973

FAIR TRIAL IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE OF INDIA

The Criminal procedure code provides that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused has a right to
have the assistance of a counsel and the Criminal procedure also requires the court in all criminal
cases, where the accused is unable to engage counsel, to appoint a counsel for him at the
expenses of the State. Howsoever guilty the appellant upon the inquiry might have been, he is
until convicted, presumed to be innocent. It was the duty of the Court, having these cases in
charge, to see that he is denied no necessary incident of a fair trial. It is equally true that the
absence of fair and proper trial would be violation of fundamental principles of judicial
procedure on account of breach of mandatory provisions of Section 304 of CrPC.
The Supreme Court in Sukh Das v. State of Arunachal Pradesh 7 has held that a conviction of
the accused in a trial in which he was not provided legal aid would be set aside as being violative
of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Section 304 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides Legal aid to accused at State
expense in certain cases(1) Where, in a trial before the Court of Session, the accused is not represented by a pleader, and
where it appears to the Court that the accused has not sufficient means to engage a pleader, the
Court shall assign a pleader for his defense at the expense of the State.
(2) The High Court may, with the previous approval of the State Government, make rules
providing for(a) the mode of selecting pleaders for defense under sub- section (1);
(b) the facilities to be allowed to such pleaders by the Courts;
(c) the fees payable to such pleaders by the Government, and generally, for carrying out the
purposes of sub- section (1).
(3) The State Government may, by notification, direct that, as from such date as may be specified
in the notification, the provisions of sub- sections (1) and (2) shall apply in relation to any class
of trials before other Courts in the State as they apply in relation to trials before Courts of
Session.
7 1986 AIR 991, 1986 SCR (1) 590

Section 169 of Code of Criminal Procedure provides that if upon investigation it appears to
office in charge of police station that there is no sufficient evidence is available against the
accused, such officer shall release him by taking bond and when so required present him before
magistrate for the trial.
Section 207 provides supply of copy of police report and other documents to the accused.

Presumption of innocence
Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until
proved guilty according to the law. ICCPR Art. 14(2)
A fundamental element of the right to a fair trial is that every person should be presumed
innocent unless and until proved guilty following a fair trial. This is why the responsibility falls
on the state to prove guilt and to discharge the presumption of innocence.
Due to the presumption of innocence, a person cannot be compelled to confess guilt or give
evidence against him/herself. It is for the state to produce evidence of guilt, not for the defendant
to prove innocence. In general, therefore, a suspects silence should not be used as evidence of
guilt.
Because of the serious consequences of conviction, the state must prove guilt to a high standard.
If doubt remains, the defendant must be given the benefit of the doubt and cleared because the
states burden of proof has not been met.
Given the massive human impact of criminal proceedings on defendants, and the presumption of
innocence, trials should take place without undue delay. It would be unfair to allow states
numerous attempts to try to secure a conviction. If a case goes to trial and guilt is not proved,
unless exceptional circumstances exist, the person should not be tried again. This requires the
state to do the job of prosecution properly in the first instance.
The presumption of innocence is why, before conviction, any restrictions on a suspects basic
rights, for example the right to liberty, should only be imposed where absolutely necessary.
People awaiting trial have not been convicted of any offence and many will ultimately be
cleared.

In Kali Ram v. State of H.P8. the Supreme Court observed it is no doubt true that wrongful
acquittals are undesirable and shake the confidence of the people in the judicial system, much
worse; however is the wrongful conviction of an innocent person. The consequences of the
conviction of an innocent person are far more serious and its reverberations cannot be felt in a
civilized society. It is the duty of the prosecutor and defense.

Open court of Justice

Justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done. This is one reason why, except in
rare cases, people are entitled to a public hearing. Open Justice enables the public to see how
justice is administered and by subjecting it to public and press scrutiny, safeguards the fairness of
the trial. This is also why people are entitled to a reasoned judgment which has been made
public.
Open Justice requires people to be informed of the reasons for their arrest and any pretrial
detention (to safeguard Liberty). They must also be given information on their rights as a
suspect. Without this information, conveyed in a language the person understands, rights that
exist in law are illusory in practice.
People should be told what they are being prosecuted for and shown the evidence against them,
in a language they understand. Without this information, a person would not have a Fair Chance
to Present a Defense, for example by gathering evidence to counter claims made against them or
providing alibi evidence.
The Right to a Fair Trial also requires that people charged with offences be allowed to attend
court and to participate effectively in the trial. This enables the court to interact with them and
allows the person to hear and respond to the prtosecution case. Defendants are entitled to give
evidence and, except in exceptional cases, are also entitled to call witnesses and cross-examine
prosecution witnesses.
Section 327 provides Court to be open8 1973 SCC (Cri) 1048 at 1061. Though in the same year in a previous case of
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, 1973 SCC (Cri) 1033, this court
questioned the frequent use this principle. The conflict arised in the principle of
presumption of innocence appears to be more against the manner in which
principle and the principle of giving the accused the benefit of doubt, was been
applied and misused by weak and incompetent judges.

1.9 The place in which any Criminal Court is held for the purpose of inquiring into or trying any
offence shall be deemed to be an open court to which the public generally may have access, so
far as the same can conveniently contain them:
Provided that the presiding Judge or Magistrate may, if he thinks fit, order at any stage of any
inquiry into, or trial of, any particular case, that the public generally, or any particular person,
shall not have access to, or be or remain in, the room building used by the court.
2.10 Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the inquiry into and trial of rape or an
offence under section 376, section 376A, section 376B, section 376C or section 376D of the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be conducted in camera:
Provided that the presiding Judge may, if he thinks fit, or on an application made by either of the
parties, allow any particular person to have access to, or be or remain in, the room or building
used by the court.
(3) Where any proceedings are held under sub-section (2), it shall not be lawful for any person to
print or publish any matter in relation to any such proceedings, except with the previous
permission of the court.

A fair chance to present a defense

A person charged with a criminal offence faces the overwhelming power of the state. The Right
to a Fair Trial therefore requires that the defendant be given a Fair Chance to Present a Defense
in order to counteract this imbalance. This requirement for equality of arms is inherent to the
Presumption of Innocence and the Rule of Law.
Access to a lawyer is crucial to this and this right starts from the point of arrest and through the
trial itself. People need access to legal advice so that they can understand the case against them
and have a Fair Chance to Present a Defense. If a defendant has the means to pay, he/she should
be able to choose their own lawyer. If the person cannot afford to pay for their own lawyer,
where the interests of justice require, the state should provide free legal assistance.
Section 41(D) provides every arrested person has a right to meet an advocate of his choice.
A person facing criminal charges must have the time and facilities to prepare a defense. This
right exists at all stages of the proceedings and encompasses the right to documents, files, and
information as well as a guarantee of confidential communication with counsel (see Open
Justice). Although undue delays in criminal proceedings often contradict the Right to a Fair Trial,
fast-track trials can also deny people a Fair Chance to Present a Defense.
9 Section 327 renumbered as sub-section (1) thereof by Act 43 of 1983. sec. 4
10 Ins. by Act 43 of 1983, sec. 4

Section 50 provides every arrested person has right to information about grounds of his arrest
and police officer acknowledge him that he has right to bail.
Open Justice and should be given the chance to make a statement. Except in exceptional
circumstances, people must also be given the right to call witnesses and examine or have
examined witnesses in the same manner as the prosecution.

Evidence to be taken in the presence of accused

As a logically corollary of sections 228, 240, 246 and 251 (where the particulars of the offence
have to be explained to the accused person) it is also imperative that in a trial the evidence
should be taken in the presence of the accused person. Section 273 of the Code is significant in
this regard which provides that all evidence taken in the course of the trial shall be taken in the
presence of the accused. This section provides for exception to this rule that if the personal
attendance of the accused is dispensed with the evidence shall be taken in the presence of his
pleader.11The right created by this section is further supplemented by section 278, which, inter
alia provides that whenever the law requires the evidence of a witness to be read over to him
after its completion, the reading shall be done in the presence of the accused, or of his pleader.
These provisions enable the accused person to prepare his arguments for rebuttal of such
evidences.
If any evidence is given in a language not understood by the accused person, the object of section
273 will not be fulfilled; therefore to avoid this difficulty section 279 casts a mandatory duty on
the court that whenever any evidence is given in any language not understood by the accused, it
shall be interpreted to him in open court in a language understood by him. But non-compliance
with this provision will be considered as a mere irregularity not vitiating the trial if there was no
prejudice or injustice caused to the accused person.

Trial in the presence of the accused

The general rule in criminal cases is that all inquiries and trials should be conducted in the
presence of the accused person. The underlying principle behind this is that in a criminal trial the
court should not proceed ex parte against the accused person. It is also necessary for the reason
that it facilitates the accused to understand properly the prosecution case and to know the
witnesses against him so that he can check their truthfulness in a later stage. Though the Code
does not explicitly provide for mandatory presence of the accused in the trial 12 but it can be
11 As provided under ss. 205,293, 299 & 317 of the code
12 Ss. 235(2) and 248(2) which are related to pre-sentence hearing require thatthe judge
shall hear the accused on the question of sentence before passing the
sentence provide for the presence of the accused.

indirectly inferred from the provisions which allow the court to dispense with the personal
presence of the accused person under certain circumstances.

In the case of H.R. Industries v. State of Kerala 13 , the Kerala High Court very beautifully stated
that the circumstances in which the personal presence of the accused person could be done away.
It was opined that:
In cases which are grievous in nature involving moral turpitude, personal attendance is the rule.
But in cases which are technical in nature, which do not involve moral turpitude and where the
sentence is only fine, exemption should be the rule. The courts should insist upon the appearance
of the accused only when it is his interest to appear or when the court feels that his presence is
necessary for effective disposal of the case. When the accused are women labourers, wage
earners and other busy men, court should as a rule grant exemption from personal attendance.
Court should see that undue harassment is not caused to the accused appearing before the court.

CASE LAWS
D.K.Basu vs. State of West Bengal (1997) 1 SCC 216
In view of the increasing incidence of violence and torture in custody, the Supreme Court of
India has laid down 11 specific requirements and procedures that the police and other agencies
have to follow for the arrest, detention and interrogation of any person. These are:
1. Police arresting and interrogating suspects should wear accurate, visible and clear
identification and name tags, and details of interrogating police officers should be
recorded in a register.
2. A memo of arrest must be prepared at the time of arrest. This should:
have the time and date of arrest.
be attested by at least one witness who may either be a family member of the person
arrested or a respectable person of the locality where the arrest was made.
be counter-signed by the person arrested.
3. The person arrested, detained or being interrogated has a right to have a relative, friend or
well-wisher informed as soon as practicable, of the arrest and the place of detention or
custody. If the person to be informed has signed the arrest memo as a witness this is not
required.
4. Where the friend or relative of the person arrested lives outside the district, the time and
place of arrest and venue of custody must be notified by police within 8 to 12 hours after
arrest. This should be done by a telegram through the District Legal Aid Authority and
the concerned police station.
13 1973 Cri LJ 22 (kerala) at 263

5. The person arrested should be told of the right to have someone informed of the arrest, as
soon as the arrest or detention is made.
6. An entry must be made in the diary at the place of detention about the arrest, the name of
the person informed and the name and particulars of the police officers in whose custody
the person arrested is.
7. The person being arrested can request a physical examination at the time of arrest. Minor
and major injuries if any should be recorded. The Inspection Memo should be signed
by the person arrested as well as the arresting police officer. A copy of this memo must be
given to the person arrested.
8. The person arrested must have a medical examination by a qualified doctor every 48
hours during detention. This should be done by a doctor who is on the panel, which must
be constituted by the Director of Health Services of every State.
9. Copies of all documents including the arrest memo have to be sent to the Area Magistrate
for his record.
10. The person arrested has a right to meet a lawyer during the interrogation, although not for
the whole time.
11. There should be a police control room in every District and State headquarters where
information regarding the arrest and the place of custody of the person arrested must be
sent by the arresting officer. This must be done within 12 hours of the arrest. The control
room should prominently display the information on a notice board.
These requirements were issued to the Director General of Police and the Home Secretary of
every State. They were obliged to circulate the requirements to every police station under their
charge. Every police station in the country had to display these guidelines prominently. The
judgment also encouraged that the requirements be broadcast through radio and television and
pamphlets in local languages be distributed to spread awareness.
Failure to comply with these requirements would make the concerned official liable for
departmental action. Not following these directions constitutes a contempt of the Supreme Court,
which is a serious offence, punishable by Imprisonment and fine. This contempt of court petition
can be filed in any High Court.
These requirements are in addition to other rights and rules, such as:

The right to be informed at the time of arrest of the offence for which the person is being
arrested.
The right to be presented before a magistrate within 24 hours of the arrest.
The right not to be ill-treated or tortured during arrest or in custody.
Confessions made in police custody cannot be used as evidence against the accused.
A boy under 15 years of age and women cannot be called to the police station only for
questioning.

The Constitution

The Constitution of India, which is the basic law of the country, provides protection to all
persons from ill treatment and torture by the police and other state agencies.
Article 21
Guarantees the right to life and personal liberty to all persons.
Article 22
Lays down the rights available at the time of arrest and detention. These rights can be enforced
by directly approaching the High Courts and the Supreme Court of India.

Ram Awadh v. State of U.P [1999 CriLJ 4083]

the Allahabad High Court held:
The requirement of providing counsel to an accused at the State expense is not an empty
formality which may be not by merely appointing a counsel whatever his calibre may be. When
the law enjoins appointing a counsel to defend an accused, it means an effective counsel, a
counsel in real sense who can safeguard the interest of the accused in best possible manner which
is permissible under law. An accused facing charge of murder may be sentenced to death or
imprisonment for life and consequently his case should be handled by a competent person and
not by a novice or one who has no professional expertise. A duty is cast upon the Judges before
whom such indigent accused are facing trial for serious offence and who are not able to engage a
counsel, to appoint competent persons for their defence. It is needless to emphasis that a Judge is
not a prosecutor and his duty is to discern the truth so that he is able to arrive at a correct
conclusion. A defence lawyer plays an important role in bringing out the truth before the Court
by cross-examining the witnesses and placing relevant materials or evidence. The absence of
proper cross-examination may at times result in miscarriage of justice and the Court has to guard
against such an eventuality.
Where in a criminal appeal the council appointed by the Court for the accused does not turn up at
the time of hearing and the appeal is disposed of without hearing him, the case rightly deserved
to be remanded for fresh hearing of the appeal.
Where in a sessions trial the accused made a request for being provided the services of a
particular lawyer named by him at the State expenses as envisaged under Section 304 CrPC but
the State provided another lawyer to defend him, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that it
is not denied that an accused has the right to be defended by the lawyer of choice but when it

comes to the appointment of lawyer for the defence of accused at State expense, it would be the
choice of the Court and not of the accused to provide a lawyer for defending him. The Court is
under no obligation to provide to the accused, the lawyer of his choice if he wants to be defended
at the expenses of the State Government.

CONCLUSION
"Equality, Justice and Liberty" is the trinity of fair trial recognised in the administration of justice
of India where the affluent and the "lowly and lost" have the equality of access to justice in the
administration of justice in general and the criminal justice system in particular. This
fundamental principle of fair trial is the backdrop of the International Covenants, and enjoined in
the Constitution of India as well as the criminal laws devising the criminal justice system of
India. The beauty of the principles enshrined lies in the fact that much matter is decocted into
small words. The thrust is imperative to means (criminal procedures) which must be trustworthy
in order to have just ends.
The Constitution of India lays down a social policy concerning equal justice and free legal aid
"by suitable legislation or schemes or in any other way, to ensure that opportunities securing
justice are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities." This social
policy aims at: "Indigence should never be a ground for denying fair trial or equal justice
particular attention should be paid to appoint competent advocates, equal to handling complex
cases, not patronising gestures to raw entrants at the Bar.
Section 304 of the Cr.P.C, 1973 enables the Session Courts to assign the pleader for the defence
of the accused at the expense of the state provided he is unrepresented and the court is satisfied
that he has no sufficient means to engage a pleader. The selection of such pleader, the facilities to
be given to him by the court and his remuneration are to be governed by the rules that may be
framed by the High Court in this regard with previous approval of the State Government. This
facility also extends to any class of criminal trials before other courts as indicated earlier to try
criminal cases in the State as it applies in relation to trials before Courts of Sessions.