Holding

The Supreme Court held that the trial and appellate courts failed to ensure a fair trial, violating Article 21, and therefore set aside the conviction and death sentence.

Summary

Sovaran Singh Prajapati was convicted of murdering his wife and daughter under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentenced to death by the Trial Court, a judgment affirmed by the Allahabad High Court. The appellant challenged the conviction on the ground that the trial was not a fair trial, citing numerous procedural irregularities such as the absence of defence counsel at critical stages, improper recording of the accused's statement under Section 313 CrPC, delayed framing of charges, multiple changes of counsel, and the summary rejection of a Section 311 application. The Supreme Court examined the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial under Article 21, the duties of the trial and appellate courts, the role of the prosecutor, and the standards for legal aid and amicus curiae. It held that the trial court acted mechanically, ignored the rights of the accused, and failed to ensure a fair and impartial proceeding, especially in a capital case. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and death sentence, remanding the matter to the trial court to restart the trial from the framing of charges with an expedited schedule.

Issues considered

Whether the Trial Court complied with the basic requirements of a fair trial before imposing the death sentence.
Whether the High Court was correct in confirming the death sentence imposed by the Trial Court.
Whether the procedural safeguards under Sections 311 and 313 of the CrPC were observed.
Whether the accused was provided with effective legal aid and representation, including the role of the appointed Amicus Curiae.
Whether the prosecution fulfilled its duty as an officer of the Court in presenting all relevant evidence.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 311, s. 313
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 201, s. 302
Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987

Headnote

Issue for Consideration a. Whether the Trial Court followed the basic requirements of a fairly conducted trial, in accordance with well-established prepositions of law, before imposing death sentence upon the Appellant/Accused? b. Whether the High Court was correct in confirming imposed by the Trial Court? Headnotes† Constitutional of India – Art.21 – Fair Trial – Article 21 of the Constitution of India – To secure a fair trial is not solitary responsibility: Held: Fair and impartial administration of justice is a treasured right protected

Subjects

Capital PunishmentFair TrialArticle 21Section 311 CrPCSection 313 CrPCLegal AidAmicus CuriaeRight to CounselInternational Human RightsDeath PenaltyProcedural FairnessCriminal ProcedureIndian Penal Code

Judgment

[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1890 : 2025 INSC 225

Sovaran Singh Prajapati
v.
The State of Uttar Pradesh
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 259-260 of 2019)
04 February 2025
[Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
a. Whether the Trial Court followed the basic requirements of
a fairly conducted trial, in accordance with well-established
prepositions of law, before imposing death sentence upon
the Appellant/Accused?
b. Whether the High Court was correct in confirming the death
sentence imposed by the Trial Court?

Headnotes†
Constitutional of India – Art.21 – Fair Trial – Article 21 of the
Constitution of India – To secure a fair trial is not solitary
responsibility:
Held: Fair and impartial administration of justice is a treasured
right protected by various enactments of law including, first and
foremost, the Constitution, which under Article 21 guarantees the
Right to Fair Trial – Fair and just investigation is the starting point
of the fair trial process – The process is a triangulation of the rights
of the accused, the victim, and the community – The process of
investigation must be completed with promptitude – The Trial
Court Judge must play an active role in the search for the truth,
which a trial, undoubtedly must be – Bias of all nature must be
eliminated – Fair trial is to be done to maintain public confidence
and uphold the majesty of law – Unfair prolongation of trial is an
affront to the ideal of fair trial – Fair trial is a basic human right –
The main purpose of fair trial is to ensure that injustice is avoided
as far as possible, but equally ‘fair trial’ is not leveraged to a
point which would hinder the established procedure of CrPC – In
other words, the command of the Code cannot be ignored at the
behest of the prosecution or defence, in the name of fair trial – The
responsibility to secure fair trial is not solitary, and lies upon the
* Author
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1891

Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

judge, the investigator, the investigating agency, and counsels for
either side. [Paras 10, 11]

Duty of the Trial Court – Not to be Mechanical –Court must
actively seek out the truth:
Held: Trial Court should be an active participant to seek out the
truth in a given set of circumstances to ensure that a balance is
struck between the role and responsibility of prosecution as also
the rights of the accused – The Court’s duty is not to merely record
evidence by overlooking the object of the trial i.e. to extract the
truth – The Trial Court ought to have observed and halted the
proceedings, given the absence of the counsel for the defence
at crucial stages of the trial; absence of adequate opportunity
to examine and cross-examine the defence witnesses; and the
improper, inadequate and incomplete examination of the accused
under Section 313 CrPC – The course adopted by the Trial Court
was mechanical and in complete ignorance of the rights of the
accused and objective of the trial. [Paras 15, 15.2, 16]

Appointment of Amicus Curiae – Standing of Amicus and
role to be played by Amicus needs to be indicated by Trial
Court in its Orders:
Held: Trial Court must indicate the standing of the person appointed
as Amicus Curiae. Trial Court should also indicate the role played
by the Amicus in the Trial — Whether the Amicus was appointed
to assist the Court or was he appointed to aid the representation
of the accused? Such indications enable the Appellate Court to
gain a full view of the matter, including being able to ascertain
compliance of essential aspects such as continuous and qualitative
legal assistance of the accused. [Para 17]

Duty of the Appellate Court – Capital Punishment Cases –
Heightened Responsibility:
Held: An Appellate Court has to appreciate the evidence on
record, after duly summoning the record of the Courts below,
and then arrive at its own finding, irrespective of the order under
challenge before it being of conviction or acquittal – In Capital
Punishment cases, where a person’s life hangs in the balance,
the High Court’s responsibility is heightened, and it must carefully
examine all relevant and material circumstances before upholding
the conviction and confirming the death sentence. [Paras 18, 19]
1892 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Duty of the Prosecutor – Examine all possible angles – Collect
all relevant evidence:
Held: In a criminal trial, unless the law otherwise requires, the onus
of proof never shifts, and always lies upon the Prosecution – The
job of the prosecution is to drive home the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt, but at the same time, the prosecutor
cannot forget that his first and foremost duty is that of an officer
of the Court – The prosecuting agency has a responsibility to
examine all possible angles, collect all relevant evidence and
then produce the same before the Court for determination of guilt
or lack thereof – The prosecutor in the present case seemed to
have missed his duty as an officer of the Court by failing to bring
to the notice of the Court that the circumstances of change of
counsel; belated appointment of Amicus Curiae / defence counsel;
closure of opportunity to cross-examine; recording of evidence in
the absence of defence counsel contravened the principle of a
fair trial. [Paras 20, 21]

Purpose of Cross-Examination – Kartar Singh v. State of
Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569 relied upon:
Held: In Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569, the
Supreme Court highlighted that the purpose of cross-examination
is to: a) call into question the credibly the evidentiary value of the
witness; b) bring out such facts that may favour the cross-examining
lawyer’s client; and c) to establish the said witness is unworthy of
belief and that his credit stands impeached. [Para 26]

Section 311 CrPC – Applicability of – Explained:
Held: The power of the Court under Section 311 CrPC is couched in
the widest terms possible with no express limitation thereon – The
Section is divided into two parts — The first part being directory
and the second part mandatory – It is not only the prerogative but
also the duty of the Court to summon and examine a witness who
is absolutely necessary in the interest of justice – The power is
to be exercised judiciously, both for the benefit of the prosecution
and the defence, and could be exercised at any stage of the
proceedings – This power under Section 311 is not to be exercised
to fill up a lacuna in the case of the prosecution – If a witness so
called gives evidence against the complainant, the latter should
be given an opportunity to cross-examine, a right arising not
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1893

Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

under Section 311, but under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – The
order rejecting the application to recall witnesses records that
the application under Section 311 was rejected and that defence
evidence would be allowed only if the witness was produced on
the next date – Such a summary rejection is unjustified, and the
application should have been allowed. [Paras 30, 30.1, 32]

Examination – Section 313 CrPC – Application of, explained –
Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 609
and Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973)
2 SCC 793:
Held: The principles governing Section 313 CrPC, as summarised in
Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 609 and
in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC
793, state that it is the duty of the Trial Court to put each material
circumstance appearing in the evidence against the accused
specifically, distinctively and separately – The object of examination
under section 313 CrPC is to enable the accused to explain any
circumstance appearing against him in the evidence – Failure to
put material circumstances amounts to a serious irregularity and
may vitiate the trial if it causes prejudice – Where such irregularity
is curable, the appellate court can question the accused on the
material circumstance not earlier put, or the case can be remanded
to the Trial Court for recording a supplementary statement – While
deciding if prejudice is caused, delay in raising the contention
is only one of several factors to be considered – In the present
case, factors summarised in Raj Kumar were not followed – All
incriminating circumstances were not put to the accused and
general, sweeping questions were employed, which were only
denied – It is incumbent upon the prosecutor to aid the Court in
preparing questions to be put to the accused – It has been held
in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade (supra) that prejudice can be caused
if the statements are not properly recorded – There is adequate
possibility that the appellant has been prejudiced. [Paras 32, 32.2]

International Law – Fairness in criminal procedure:
Held: The Universal Declaration of human Rights, 1948 records
guarantee for fairness in criminal procedure in articles 10 and
11 – Article 14 of the International Covenant for Civil and Political
Rights, 1996 which was ratified by India in 1979, guarantees equality
1894 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

to all persons before the law – The rights of the accused under
article 67 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
entitle the accused to basic protections under the law, even in the
cases of gravest and most heinous crimes. [Paras 33, 33.1, 33.2]

Case Law Cited
Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat [2019] 15 SCR 936 :
(2019) 17 SCC 1; Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat
[2004] 3 SCR 1050 : (2004) 4 SCC 158; Sidhartha Vashisht v.
State (NCT of Delhi) [2010] 4 SCR 103 : (2010) 6 SCC 1;
J. Jayalalithaa v. State of Karnataka [2013] 17 SCR 759 : (2014) 2
SCC 401; Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar [2017] 1 SCR 945 : (2017)
4 SCC 397; State of Haryana v. Ram Meher [2016] 5 SCR 172 :
(2016) 8 SCC 762; Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2023] 5 SCR
754 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 609; Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State
of Maharashtra [1974] 1 SCR 489 : (1973) 2 SCC 793; Jamatraj
Kewalji Govani v. State of Maharashtra [1967] 3 SCR 415 : 1967
SCC OnLine SC 19; Rajendra Prasad v. Narcotic Cell [1999] 3 SCR
818 : (1999) 6 SCC 110; Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P. [2011] 11 SCR
893 : (2011) 8 SCC 136; Natasha Singh v. CBI [2013] 5 SCR 539 :
(2013) 5 SCC 741; Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar [2013]
7 SCR 420 : (2013) 14 SCC 461; State v. N. Seenivasagan [2021]
2 SCR 529 : (2021) 14 SCC 1; Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana
[2023] 11 SCR 723 : 2023 SCC OnLine 1086 – relied on.
Pooja Pal v. Union of India [2016] 11 SCR 560 : (2016) 3 SCC
135; Bablu Kumar v. State of Bihar [2015] 8 SCR 512 : (2015) 8
SCC 787; Lalu Prasad v. State of Jharkhand [2013] 8 SCR 163 :
(2013) 8 SCC 593; Wilayat Khan v. State of U.P. (1951) SCC 898;
Atley v. State of U.P., AIR 1955 SC 807; Harijana Thirupala v.
Public Prosecutor [2002] Supp. 1 SCR 379 : (2002) 6 SCC 470;
Ravasaheb v. State of Karnataka [2023] 2 SCR 965 : (2023) 5
SCC 391; Masalti v. State of U.P. [1964] 8 SCR 133 : AIR 1965
SC 202; Charan Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab [1975] 1 SCR
561 : (1975) 3 SCC 39; Arjun Marik & Ors. v. State of Bihar [1994]
2 SCR 265 : (1994) Supp. 2 SCC 372; Ashok v. State of Uttar
Pradesh [2024] 12 SCR 335 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3580; Shiv
Kumar v. Hukam Chand [1999] Supp. 2 SCR 81 : (1999) 7 SCC
467; Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar [2023] 11 SCR 403 : (2023)
13 SCC 563; Anees v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2024] 6 SCR 164 :
2024 SCC OnLine SC 757; State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh [1999]
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1895

Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

3 SCR 977 : (1999) 6 SCC 172; Chaluvegowda & Ors. v. State
(2012) 13 SCC 538; Brijesh Kumar v. State of U.P. [2021] 2 SCR
995 : (2021) 19 SCC 177; M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra
[1979] 1 SCR 192 : (1978) 3 SCC 544; Suk Das v. Union Territory
of Arunachal Pradesh [1986] 1 SCR 590 : (1986) 2 SCC 401;
Suhas Chakma v. Union of India [2024] 10 SCR 1769 : 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 3031; Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of U.P.
[2022] 5 SCR 162 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1396; Shaik Mukhtar
& Anr. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh now State of Telangana,
Supreme Court decision in Criminal Appeal No. 1753 of 2019;
Anokhilal v. State of M.P. [2019] 18 SCR 1196 : (2019) 20 SCC
196; Ekene Godwin v. State of T.N., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 337;
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab [1994] 2 SCR 375 : (1994) 3 SCC
569; Bashira v. State of U.P. [1969] 1 SCR 32 : 1968 SCC OnLine
SC 84 – referred to.

Books and Periodicals Cited
American Jurisprudence 2nd Ed. 2007 – referred to.

List of Websites
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/
international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights; https://www.icc-cpi.
int/about/the-court

List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860.

List of Keywords
Capital Punishment; Rights of the accused; Fair Trial; Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, 1948; International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, 1966.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No(s).
259-260 of 2019
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.10.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in CC No. 2611 of 2017 and REF No.
05 of 2017
1896 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Appearances for Parties
Rajiv Shakdhar, Sr. Adv., Aditya Verma, Ms. Shreya Rastogi,
Ms. Aathma Sudhir Kumar, Ms. Sakshi Jain, Karan Khetani,
Jonathan Ivan Rajan, K Rigved Prasad, Samar Singh, Ms. Parkhi
Rai, Mangesh Naik, Advs. for the Appellant.
Divyesh Pratap Singh, Shashank Shekhar Singh, Ajay Singh,
Abhinav Singh, Harshvardhan Visen Mall, Advs. for the Respondent.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Order

Sanjay Karol, J

1. These appeals arise out of judgment and order dated 1st October
2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Capital
Case No.2611 of 2017 and Reference No.05 of 2017. The impugned
judgment of the High Court confirmed the judgment of conviction
dated 28th February 2017, and the sentence of capital punishment
imposed vide judgment dated 1st March 2017 upon the appellant by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Mainpuri in Sessions Trial No.377/2014,
titled State v. Sovaran Singh, under Sections 302 and 201 of Indian
Penal Code 18601.

FACTS AND PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS
2. Brief Facts, as allegedly set out by the prosecution, are that in the
intervening night of 29th - 30th of June 2014, the appellant returned
home in an inebriated state, also carrying two bottles of liquor which
he then consumed along with his father. Sometime later, a quarrel
ensued between them which led to the appellant slapping his father,
who was, as a result, injured in his ear. Thereafter, he demanded
money from his wife Mamta to procure more liquor which she denied.
As such he trashed, abused and eventually killed her. He also
killed his daughter Sapna who was twelve years old. Resultantly,
FIR No.128 of 2014 was registered under Section 302 IPC at P.S.

1 for short ‘IPC 1860’
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1897

Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Karhal, District Mainpuri. With the completion of the investigation,
challan was presented in the Trial Court and the appellant herein
was put to trial.
3. Post-Mortem conducted by Dr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra (PW-3), found
the following injuries on both the deceased persons, as recorded by
the High Court in the impugned judgment:
“4. P.W. 3 Dr. Rajesh Kumar Mishra conducted post-mortem
on dead body of Mamta on 30.6.2014 at 4.25 PM. On
external examination, Doctor found her slim and weak
with 146 cm height and 39.700 Kg in weight. Rigor mortis
found present in lower segment of body; eyes were half
closed, mouth open, nail in-tact and bleeding from nose
and ear was noticed. P.W. 3 found following ante mortem
injuries on her person:
"1. Abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm on right side
forehead, 1 cm above eye brow, blackening
present
2. Abrasion 3 cm x 4 cm just below right eye,
blackening present.
3. Abrasion 5 cm x 4 cm on left side of left
eye, blackening present. 4. Blood through
nose and both ears.
5. Abrasion 6 cm x 3 cm on right side of neck,
1 cm below right mandible.
6. Abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm over anterior aspect
of right shoulder, blackening present.
7. Abrasion 5 cm x 3 cm on right side of
chest, 5 cm below left nipple.
8. Lacerated wound 5 cm x 3 cm on left side
of vagina, exposing uterus and bladder.”
5. On internal examination, right eye was black; lips
were swollen and black in colour; tongue inside mouth;
ecchymosis present in neck muscles; hyoid left corner
fractured; weight of right lung 340 gm (Pale) and left
320 gm; both chambers of heart empty; blood present in
1898 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

peritonial cavity; stomach contained about 150 gm semi
digested food matter; small intestine contained semi
digested food particles and large intestine contained
faecal matter and gases; liver was lacerated 5 cm and
pale; spleen weighed 150 gm and pale; kidneys-pale, right
kidney weighed 150 gm and left 130 gm, urinary bladder
and urethra were ruptured. In the opinion of Doctor, about
one day has passed since the death. Cause of death
was due to acute haemorrhagic shock as a result of ante
mortem injuries, causing internal bleeding. Postmortem
report prepared by P.W. 3 is Ex. Ka. 2.
6. The same Doctor, P.W. 3 examined dead body of
deceased Sapna at about 04:40 PM on 30.06.2014.
According to him, deceased was aged about 12 years,
22.400 kg in weight. Rigor mortis was present; eyes and
mouth closed and lips swollen. He found following ante
mortem injuries on her person.
“1. Face and fore head swollen, right black eye.
2. Abrasion 6 cm x 4 cm on right side of face,
2 cm anterior to right ear.
3. Lips swollen and teeth mark laceration in
inner side of lips.
4. Abrasion 5 cm x 3 cm on left side of face
anterior to left eye.
5. Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on anterior aspect
of left fore arm, 3 cm above wrist joint, bluish.
6. Abrasion 1 cm x 1 cm on posterior aspect of
base of index finger (II Metacarpo-phallangeal
joint), bluish.
7. Lateral fold of vagina wide open, mens
(menstrual) and labia swollen, vagina congested
and lacerated, particularly some sticky wheatish
substance present, slide prepared.
8. Abrasion 2 cm x 1 cm on anterior lateral
aspect of right knee, bluish coloured.”
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1899

Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

7. On internal examination, brain was found congested
with 1.100 kg in weight and haematoma was present;
bleeding found from nose and left ear; right lung weighed
300 gm and was congested and left lung weighed 250 gm;
left side heart was empty and right side was full; stomach
contained 200 gm semi solid food content, mucous normal,
no foul smell; small intestine contained semi digested food
material and large intestine had faecal matter and gases
and liver was congested. In the opinion of doctor, death
had occurred due to head injury/ante-mortem injuries. P.W.
3 had prepared post-mortem report Ex. Ka-3.”
4. The Trial Court considered the arguments of both the parties and
eventually held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt and as such, convicted the appellant of having
committed a double murder. On the point of sentence, the matter was
put up the following day, i.e., on 1st March 2017 and, having considered
a host of judicial pronouncements, evaluating the aggravating and
mitigating circumstances, the sentence of death by hanging was
imposed qua Section 302 IPC and seven-year imprisonment for the
offence punishable under Section 201 IPC.
5. On appeal, the High Court confirmed the sentence of death imposed
by the Trial Court, accounting for all the attending aggravating and
mitigating circumstances.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, Mr. Rajiv Shakdher,
learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Divyesh Pratap
Singh for the State. At the outset, it was clarified by the learned
Senior counsel that under assail was the finding of conviction as
also the sentence. In taking us through the record, numerous lapses
have been pointed out, which go to the root of the matter, calling
into question credibly, the justiciability of the conviction as well as
the sentence imposed on the appellant.

Purpose of Trial
7. It is important to restate the purpose of trial. A trial, of course, is a
fact-finding exercise wherein both parties, i.e., the prosecution and
defence, after investigation by the competent authorities, present their
versions of events and the role and duty of the Court to determine
the truth. While undertaking such determination, the Court is not only
1900 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

to look at the evidence at hand but also ensure that all consideration
balances the demand for justice and the rights of the accused. The
American Jurisprudence 2nd Ed. 2007, in the following terms,
captures the purpose of a trial:
“The purpose of trial is to determine the validity of the
allegations. The objective is to secure a fair and impartial
administration of justice between the parties to the litigation
and not the achievement of a hearing wholly free from
errors. Once a civil action has been instituted and issue
is joined upon the pleadings, there must be a trial on the
issue before a judgment may be rendered. Trial is not a
contest between lawyers but a presentation of facts to which
the law may be applied to resolve the issues between the
parties and to determine their rights. It is also not a sport;
it is an inquiry into the truth, in which the general public
has an interest.”
8. The statutory mechanism regarding a trial before a Court of Session
is provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732, under Chapter
XVIII. The process and mode of taking and recording evidence have
been provided for in Chapter XXIII. Chapter XXIV details the general
provisions qua inquiries and trials. Herein, also provided is, the duty
of the Court, in certain cases, to provide the person standing trial
before it, with legal aid at the expense of the State. Also relevant here
is Chapter XXVIII, which lays down the procedure for submission of
a death sentence awarded by a Court of Session to the High Court
for confirmation.
9. This case raises questions of compliance with various basic
requirements of a fairly conducted trial, in accordance with well-
established prepositions of law.

Fair Trial - A Guarantee under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India
10. Fair and impartial administration of justice is a treasured right
protected by various enactments of law including, first and foremost,
the Constitution, which under Article 21 guarantees the Right to Fair

2 Abbreviated as Cr. P.C.
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1901

Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Trial. In numerous pronouncements, this Court has underscored the
same.
10.1 A Three-Judge Bench of this Court in Vinubhai Haribhai
Malaviya v. State of Gujarat3, held as under:
“17. Article 21 of the Constitution of India makes it
clear that the procedure in criminal trials must, after
the seminal decision in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of
India [Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1
SCC 248] , be “right, just and fair and not arbitrary,
fanciful or oppressive” (see para 7 therein). Equally,
in Commr. of Police v. Delhi High Court [Commr.
of Police v. Delhi High Court, (1996) 6 SCC 323 :
1996 SCC (Cri) 1325] , it was stated that Article 21
enshrines and guarantees the precious right of life
and personal liberty to a person which can only be
deprived on following the procedure established by
law in a fair trial which assures the safety of the
accused. The assurance of a fair trial is stated to
be the first imperative of the dispensation of justice
(see para 16 therein).
18. It is clear that a fair trial must kick off only after
an investigation is itself fair and just. The ultimate
aim of all investigation and inquiry, whether by the
police or by the Magistrate, is to ensure that those
who have actually committed a crime are correctly
booked, and those who have not are not arraigned
to stand trial. That this is the minimal procedural
requirement that is the fundamental requirement
of Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be
doubted. It is the hovering omnipresence of Article 21
over CrPC that must needs inform the interpretation
of all the provisions of CrPC, so as to ensure that
Article 21 is followed both in letter and in spirit.”
(Emphasis supplied)

3 (2019) 17 SCC 1
1902 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

10.2 In the well-known ‘Best Bakery Case’ titled Zahira Habibulla
H. Sheikh v. State of Gujarat4, the Court, detailing various
aspects of fair trial, observed as under:
“35. This Court has often emphasised that in a criminal
case the fate of the proceedings cannot always be
left entirely in the hands of the parties, crimes being
public wrongs in breach and violation of public rights
and duties, which affect the whole community as a
community and are harmful to the society in general.
The concept of fair trial entails familiar triangulation
of interests of the accused, the victim and the society
and it is the community that acts through the State
and prosecuting agencies. Interests of society are not
to be treated completely with disdain and as persona
non grata. Courts have always been considered to
have an overriding duty to maintain public confidence
in the administration of justice — often referred to
as the duty to vindicate and uphold the “majesty of
the law”. Due administration of justice has always
been viewed as a continuous process, not confined
to determination of the particular case, protecting
its ability to function as a court of law in the future
as in the case before it. If a criminal court is to be
an effective instrument in dispensing justice, the
Presiding Judge must cease to be a spectator and
a mere recording machine by becoming a participant
in the trial evincing intelligence, active interest and
elicit all relevant materials necessary for reaching
the correct conclusion, to find out the truth, and
administer justice with fairness and impartiality both
to the parties and to the community it serves. Courts
administering criminal justice cannot turn a blind eye
to vexatious or oppressive conduct that has occurred
in relation to proceedings, even if a fair trial is still
possible, except at the risk of undermining the fair
name and standing of the judges as impartial and
independent adjudicators.

4 (2004) 4 SCC 158
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1903

Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

36. The principles of rule of law and due process
are closely linked with human rights protection.
Such rights can be protected effectively when a
citizen has recourse to the courts of law. It has to
be unmistakably understood that a trial which is
primarily aimed at ascertaining the truth has to be
fair to all concerned. There can be no analytical,
all-comprehensive or exhaustive definition of
the concept of a fair trial, and it may have to be
determined in seemingly infinite variety of actual
situations with the ultimate object in mind viz.
whether something that was done or said either
before or at the trial deprived the quality of fairness
to a degree where a miscarriage of justice has
resulted. It will not be correct to say that it is only
the accused who must be fairly dealt with. That
would be turning a Nelson’s eye to the needs of
the society at large and the victims or their family
members and relatives. Each one has an inbuilt
right to be dealt with fairly in a criminal trial. Denial
of a fair trial is as much injustice to the accused as
is to the victim and the society. Fair trial obviously
would mean a trial before an impartial judge, a fair
prosecutor and atmosphere of judicial calm. Fair
trial means a trial in which bias or prejudice for or
against the accused, the witnesses, or the cause
which is being tried is eliminated. If the witnesses
get threatened or are forced to give false evidence
that also would not result in a fair trial. The failure to
hear material witnesses is certainly denial of fair trial.
xxx
38. A criminal trial is a judicial examination of the
issues in the case and its purpose is to arrive at
a judgment on an issue as to a fact or relevant
facts which may lead to the discovery of the fact
issue and obtain proof of such facts at which the
prosecution and the accused have arrived by their
pleadings; the controlling question being the guilt
1904 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

or innocence of the accused. Since the object is
to mete out justice and to convict the guilty and
protect the innocent, the trial should be a search
for the truth and not a bout over technicalities, and
must be conducted under such rules as will protect
the innocent, and punish the guilty. The proof of
charge which has to be beyond reasonable doubt
must depend upon judicial evaluation of the totality
of the evidence, oral and circumstantial, and not by
an isolated scrutiny.”
(Emphasis supplied)

10.3 In Sidhartha Vashisht v. State (NCT of Delhi)5, this Court
observed :
“197. In the Indian criminal jurisprudence, the
accused is placed in a somewhat advantageous
position than under different jurisprudence of some
of the countries in the world. The criminal justice
administration system in India places human rights
and dignity for human life at a much higher pedestal.
In our jurisprudence an accused is presumed to be
innocent till proved guilty, the alleged accused is
entitled to fairness and true investigation and fair trial
and the prosecution is expected to play balanced
role in the trial of a crime. The investigation should
be judicious, fair, transparent and expeditious to
ensure compliance with the basic rule of law.
These are the fundamental canons of our criminal
jurisprudence and they are quite in conformity with
the constitutional mandate contained in Articles 20
and 21 of the Constitution of India.”
(Emphasis supplied)

10.4 Observations in J. Jayalalithaa v. State of Karnataka6, are
important for our purposes. The relevant extracts are :

5 (2010) 6 SCC 1
6 (2014) 2 SCC 401
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1905

Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

“28. Fair trial is the main object of criminal procedure
and such fairness should not be hampered or
threatened in any manner. Fair trial entails the
interests of the accused, the victim and of the
society. Thus, fair trial must be accorded to every
accused in the spirit of the right to life and personal
liberty and the accused must get a free and fair,
just and reasonable trial on the charge imputed in
a criminal case. Any breach or violation of public
rights and duties adversely affects the community
as a whole and it becomes harmful to the society in
general. In all circumstances, the courts have a duty
to maintain public confidence in the administration
of justice and such duty is to vindicate and uphold
the “majesty of the law” and the courts cannot turn
a blind eye to vexatious or oppressive conduct that
occurs in relation to criminal proceedings.
29. Denial of a fair trial is as much injustice to
the accused as is to the victim and the society. It
necessarily requires a trial before an impartial Judge,
a fair prosecutor and an atmosphere of judicial calm.
Since the object of the trial is to mete out justice and
to convict the guilty and protect the innocent, the trial
should be a search for the truth and not a bout over
technicalities and must be conducted under such
rules as will protect the innocent and punish the guilty.
Justice should not only be done but should be seem
to have been done. Therefore, free and fair trial is a
sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution. Right to
get a fair trial is not only a basic fundamental right but
a human right also. Therefore, any hindrance in a fair
trial could be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
“No trial can be allowed to prolong indefinitely due to
the lethargy of the prosecuting agency or the State
machinery and that is the raison d’être in prescribing
the time frame” for conclusion of the trial.
30. Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights provides for the right to a fair trial what is
enshrined in Article 21 of our Constitution. Therefore,
1906 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

fair trial is the heart of criminal jurisprudence and,
in a way, an important facet of a democratic polity
and is governed by the rule of law. Denial of fair
trial is crucifixion of human rights…”
(Emphasis supplied)

10.5 This Court in Asha Ranjan v. State of Bihar7, written by
Dipak Misra J., (as his Lordship then was) referring to State
of Haryana v. Ram Meher8, summarized the conclusions
drawn in the latter, as under :
“51. … Simultaneously, the concept of fair trial cannot
be allowed to such an extent so that the systemic
order of conducting a trial in accordance with
Criminal Procedure Code or other enactments get
mortgaged to the whims and fancies of the defence
or the prosecution. The command of the Code cannot
be thrown to the winds. In such situation, as has
been laid down in many an authority, the courts
have significantly an eminent role. A plea of fair trial
cannot be acquiesced to create an organic disorder
in the system. It cannot be acceded to manure a
fertile mind to usher in the nemesis of the concept
of trial as such. The Court further observed that
there should not be any inference that the fair trial
should not be kept on its own pedestal as it ought
to remain but as far as its applicability is concerned,
the party invoking it has to establish with the support
of established principles. The process of the court
cannot be abused in the name of fair trial at the drop
of a hat, as that would lead to miscarriage of justice.”
(Emphasis supplied)

10.6 From a studied analysis of the above decisions, the following
principles as to the meaning and import of fair trial, can be
illustratively deduced :

7 (2017) 4 SCC 397
8 (2016) 8 SCC 762
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1907

Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

(1) Fair and Just investigation is the starting point
of the fair trial process.
(2) This process is a triangulation of the rights of
the accused, the victim and the community that
acts through the state and prosecuting agencies.
(3) Process of investigation and trial must be
completed with promptitude.
(4) The trial Judge has to play an active role in
the search for truth, which a trial, undoubtedly
has to be.
(5) Bias of all nature, against the accused, the
victim, the witnesses; or the cause of/at trial,
has to be eliminated.
(6) The process of fair trial is to be done to maintain
public confidence & uphold the majesty of law.
(7) The atmosphere in which a trial is to be
conducted in a fair manner has to be in an
atmosphere of ‘judicial calm’.
(8) Unfair prolongation of trial is an affront to the
ideal of fair trial.
(9) The ideal of fair trial has protection in the
Constitution and in the international legal
framework, as a basic human right.
(10) The centripodal purpose of fair trial is to ensure
that injustice is avoided as far as possible, but
equally ‘fair trial’ is not leveraged to a point
which would hinder the established procedure
of Cr.P.C. In other words, the command of the
Code cannot be ignored at the behest of the
prosecution or defence, in the name of fair trial.
11. As is evident from the principles enunciated above, to secure a fair
trial, is not a solitary responsibility. The Judge; the investigator; the
investigating agency; and the counsel for either side, each have
their own responsibility.
12. An inspection of the records of this case, reveals that on many
points each of the constituents responsible for a fair trial have in
1908 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

some way or another abdicated their responsibility. Some of the
points that we noticed:
(a) At the time of examination of the star witness of the prosecution
(PW-2), counsel of the defence was absent.
(b) The statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was
improperly recorded without all scenarios and circumstances
being put to him.
(c) The initial charge under Section 302 IPC against the appellant
was framed on 22nd December 2014 and then, an additional
charge was framed under Section 201 IPC on 27th August 2016.
The delay of a year and a half in adding a charge against the
appellant is entirely unexplained.
(d) The Legal Aid Counsel provided to the appellant was not only
appointed at a belated stage but also changed more than once
during the course of trial.
(e) The application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., while true, is a power
which has to be exercised judiciously, was rejected summarily
and without assigning any reason.
(f) On 21st February 2017, the defence counsel was changed
and, yet, on the same day, the defence evidence was closed
on account of non-production of witness.
(g) The accused being a person of considerably less means,
did not have access to an independent counsel/counsel of
his own choice. As such, he was entirely dependent on the
counsel appointed for him by the Court. The assistance given
by such counsel on account of being not present and changes/
substitutions is rendered doubtful.
13. At this juncture, we deem it appropriate to refer to certain orders,
recorded by the Trial Court in its daily status report, are as under:
Order dated 1st September 2015 reads as under:
“01.09.2015- Case called out. Accused Sobran Singh
present from jail in judiciary custody. Statement
of PW-1 Rajnesh Kumar recorded. But Accused
Counsil not appeared for cross examination. The
opportunity of cross examinations is closed at 3.35
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1909

Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

P.M. fix 17.09.2015 for remaining evidence. Summon
witnesses.
(A.S.J./F.T.C.)”
(Emphasis supplied)

Order dated 8th June 2016 is extracted below :
“08.06.2016- Case called out. Accused Sobran Singh
present from jail in judicial custody. Evidence of Pw-2
Km. Poonam recorded. But Accused counsil not
appeared for cross examination. Accused filed 18-B
application for providing Government Counsel and Sri
Veer Pal Singh Rathor appointed as Amicus Curie
in this case as per list in the office. He be informed
accordingly. Fixed 24.06.2016 for cross examination
on PW-2. Advocate be informed accordingly.
(A.S.J./F.T.C.)”
(Emphasis supplied)

Order dated 10th June 2016 is extracted below :
“10.06.2016- Put up today. Accused counsel filled
application 19-B for strucking off the name from the
list of Amicus Curie and to appoint any other Advocate.
According to the order passed on the application ‘File
taken up today on application of Ld. Amicus Curie
appointed on 08.06.2016. As he has shown his in
avaiablety to conduct the case, Sri Naresh Chand
Dixit is appointed as Amicus Curie as per list. He be
informed accordingly.
(A.S.J./F.T.C.)”

Order dated 25th July 2016 is extracted below :
“25.7.2016- Case called out. Accused Sobran
Singh present from jail in judicial custody. A.D.G.C.
(Criminal) moved application No. 25 A for framing
charge under Section 201 I.P.C agaisnt the accused.
Fixed 29.07.2016 for hearing of 25-A.
(A.S.J./F.T.C.)”
1910 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Order dated 27th August 2016 is extracted below :
“27.8.2016- Case called out. Accused Sobran Singh
present from jail in judicial custody. charge framed
against the accused Under Section 201 I.P.C. Charge
Read over and explationed before the accused.
Accused denied the charge and claimed for trial.
Fixed 03.09.2016 for remaining evidence. summon
witnesses.
(ASJ 1st)”

Order dated 1st February 2017 is extracted below :
“01.02.2017- Case called out. Accused Sobran Singh
present from jail in judicial custody. Statement of
witness S.I. Sri Om Veer Singh has been recorded
as PW-6. Cross Examination of witness has been
done by Defence counsel. Application No. 32-B filled
by the defence counsel for summoning PW-1 and
PW-2 for cross examination. Objected by A.D.G.C.
And endorsed that no prosecution evidences to be
recorded. Strongly opposed by defence counsel.
Fixed 04.02.2017 for statement Under Section 313
Cr.P.C. And hearing of 32-B application.
(A.S.J. 1st)”

Order dated 4th February 2017 is extracted below :
“04.02.2017- Case called out. Accused Sobran Singh
present from jail in judicial custody. Statement of
accused Sobran Singh has been recorded under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. Fixed on 08.02.2017 for defence
argument.
(A.S.J. 1st)”

Order dated 18th February 2017 is extracted below :
“18.02.2017- Case called out accused present
in J.C. But not present. Counsel present heared
on application 32-B brief order is passed on the
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1911

Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

application. After lunch at 02:30 P.M. an application
for time to adduce defence witness 35-B moved by
defence counsel. Order passed on the application as
“Vide order of even date today, application u/s 311
moved by Ld. counsel has been rejected. He sought
time to adduce arguments which was granted. After
which, he has moved application for providing defence
evidence. if the Ld. Counsel produce the witness
on the date fixed he will be examined failing which
matter will be posted for Judgment after hearing the
argument of prosecution.”
(A.S.J. 1st)”

Order dated 21st February 2017 is extracted below:
“21.02.2017- Case called out. Accused person is
present in Judicial Custody. An application 36-B
moved by the Ld. counsel for accused as per order
passed on the application “Application is rejected.
As apportunity has already been given”
At 12:00 P.M. present Sri Dalveer Yadav newly
appoint counsel for the accused. He states that no
witness no present. D.E. Closed as on last date it
was ordered that if Ld. producees the witness on the
date fixed he will be examined failing which argument
will be recorded.
Argument of prosecution recorded. Part argument
of defence also recorded. Put up after lunch for
remaining argument of Ld. defence counsel.
03:00 P.M. Present Ld. Counsel for defence.
Arguments concluded. Put up for Judgment on
28.02.2017 for judgment.”

Order dated 28th February 2017 is extracted below :
“28.02.20189- Case called out. Accused in presented
in Judicial Custody from the evidence on record,

9 It should be 2017 but is mentioned as 2018 in the Convenience Compilation
1912 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

I found that the prosecution has proved the case
against the accused beyond reasonable doubt both
u/s 302 IPC and 201 IPC.
Accused has guilty and putup on 01.03.2017 for the
point of sentence.
(A.S.J. 1st)”

Order dated 1st March 2017 is extracted below :
“01.03.2017- Case called out. Accused person
present in Judicial custody order passed on separate
sheet 37-A.
Order
Convict Sobran Singh sentence to death for offence
punishable u/s 302 IPC accordingly the convict be
hanged by neck till he is death. Fine of Rs. 20,000/- to
the convict is also imposed in default of payment of
fine, the convict shall undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a period of two months.
Convict Sobran Singh is further sentenced to seven
years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-
u/s 201 IPC in default of payment of fine rigorous
imprisonment for two month to the convict. Out of
the realized Rs. 20,000/- will be paid to the family
of the deceased.
A copy of this order be sent to the Secretary, Legal
Service Authority, Mainpuri for deciding the quantum
of compensation to be awarded under the scheme
refereed to in sub-section 1 of section 357-A Cr.P.C.
(A.S.J. 1st)”

14. In this context, it is essential to delve into the responsibilities cast
on each unit.

(a) Duty of the Trial Court
15. On numerous occasions, this Court has highlighted the duty of a Trial
Court to be an active participant to seek out the truth in a given set
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1913

Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

of circumstances ensuring that a balance is struck between the role
and responsibility of prosecution as also the rights of the accused.
It would be helpful to refer to certain pronouncements:
15.1 This Court in Pooja Pal v. Union of India10, observed :
“54…It was remarked as well that due administration
of justice is always viewed as a continuous process,
not confined to the determination of a particular
case so much so that a court must cease to be a
mute spectator and a mere recording machine but
become a participant in the trial evincing intelligence
and active interest and elicit all relevant materials
necessary for reaching the correct conclusion,
to find out the truth and administer justice with
fairness and impartiality both to the parties and to
the community…”
15.2 Reference may once again be made to the Best Bakery Case
(supra), where in regard to the role of a Court, it was held :
“55. The courts, at the expense of repetition we may
state, exist for doing justice to the persons who are
affected. The trial/first appellate courts cannot get
swayed by abstract technicalities and close their
eyes to factors which need to be positively probed
and noticed. The court is not merely to act as a
tape recorder recording evidence, overlooking the
object of trial i.e. to get at the truth. It cannot be
oblivious to the active role to be played for which
there is not only ample scope, but sufficient powers
conferred under the Code. It has a greater duty
and responsibility i.e. to render justice, in a case
where the role of the prosecuting agency itself is
put in issue and is said to be hand in glove with
the accused, parading a mock fight and making a
mockery of the criminal justice administration itself.”
(Emphasis supplied)

10 (2016) 3 SCC 135
1914 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

15.3 In Bablu Kumar v. State of Bihar11, this Court observed :
“22. Keeping in view the concept of fair trial, the
obligation of the prosecution, the interest of the
community and the duty of the court, it can irrefragably
be stated that the court cannot be a silent spectator or
a mute observer when it presides over a trial. It is the
duty of the court to see that neither the prosecution
nor the accused play truancy with the criminal trial
or corrode the sanctity of the proceeding. They
cannot expropriate or hijack the community interest
by conducting themselves in such a manner as a
consequence of which the trial becomes a farcical
one. The law does not countenance a “mock trial”. It
is a serious concern of society. Every member of the
collective has an inherent interest in such a trial. No
one can be allowed to create a dent in the same. The
court is duty-bound to see that neither the prosecution
nor the defence takes unnecessary adjournments and
take the trial under their control. The court is under
the legal obligation to see that the witnesses who
have been cited by the prosecution are produced by
it or if summons are issued, they are actually served
on the witnesses. If the court is of the opinion that
the material witnesses have not been examined, it
should not allow the prosecution to close the evidence.
There can be no doubt that the prosecution may not
examine all the material witnesses but that does not
necessarily mean that the prosecution can choose
not to examine any witness and convey to the court
that it does not intend to cite the witnesses.”
(Emphasis supplied)

16. In the present facts, the Court ought to have been the first one to
observe and halt proceedings, given that counsel for the defence was
absent on crucial occasions such as the examination-in-chief and cross-
examination of PW-1; statement of PW-2 also was recorded in the
absence of counsel for the accused; no adequate opportunity was given

11 (2015) 8 SCC 787
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1915

Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

to produce and examine defence witnesses; and the examination of the
accused under Section 313 was improper, inadequate and incomplete.
The course of action adopted by the Court was mechanical and in
complete ignorance of the rights of the accused and the overarching
purpose of a trial. It is true that the Court had provided an opportunity
for the defence to produce a witness but at the same time a condition
was put that if on the said date the witness is not produced, the
opportunity would be closed. This approach is in ignorance of the
ground realities of production of a witness, and to the detriment of the
accused. The Court cannot be said to have done its part.
17. We must also observe that in this case, the daily status of the Trial
Court extracted supra, reveals that that the Court appointed both
an Amicus Curiae and a legal aid counsel for the accused. There
is no quarrel on that point. The same is permissible. [See: Lalu
Prasad v. State of Jharkhand12 and Shaik Mukhtar & Anr. v. The
State of Andhra Pradesh now State of Telangana13] However, we
are constrained to record that the appointment of the Amicus Curiae
in a manner of this magnitude is in ignorance thereof for the case
papers are silent as to the standing of the said person appointed to
such a position. What was the role played by him? Was he appointed
to assist the Court or was he appointed to aid the representation of
the accused? Such matters should be clearly indicated to enable
the Appellate Court to gain a full view of the matter including being
able to ascertain compliance of essential aspects such as continuous
and qualitative legal assistance to the accused.

(b) Duty of the Appellate Court
18. In the context of the duty of the Court, we must also look to the role
played by the Court when sitting in appellate and/or confirmation
jurisdiction. It has long been held that a Court in first appellate
jurisdiction, has to appreciate the evidence on record, after duly
summoning the record of the Courts below, and then arrive at its
own finding, irrespective of the order under challenge before it being
of conviction or acquittal. [See: Wilayat Khan v. State of U.P.14;

12 (2013) 8 SCC 593
13 Criminal Appeal No. 1753 of 2019
14 (1951) SCC 898
1916 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Atley v. State of U.P15; Harijana Thirupala v. Public Prosecutor16;
and Ravasaheb v. State of Karnataka17]
19. When particularly concerned with cases of Capital Punishment,
naturally, since a person’s life hangs in the balance, the High Court’s
responsibility is accordingly enhanced/heightened. It “must carefully
examine all relevant and material circumstances before upholding the
conviction and confirming the sentence of death.” [See: Masalti v.
State of U.P.18; Charan Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab19; and
Arjun Marik & Ors. v. State of Bihar20]

(b) Duty of Prosecutor
20. In a criminal trial, unless the law otherwise requires, the onus of proof
never shifts. It is always on the prosecution. The job of the prosecution
is to drive home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt,
but at the same time, the prosecutor cannot forget that his first and
foremost duty is, that of an officer of the Court. The prosecuting
agency carries the role, primarily, till the time the matter enters the
Court. They have a responsibility to examine all possible angles,
collect all relevant evidence and then produce the same before the
Court for determination of guilt or lack thereof. The following extracts
of judgments underscore the indispensable role of the prosecutor.
20.1 In Bablu Kumar (supra), it was held that :
“The Public Prosecutor who conducts the trial has
a statutory duty to perform. He cannot afford to
take things in a light manner. The court also is not
expected to accept the version of the prosecution
as if it is sacred. It has to apply its mind on every
occasion. Non-application of mind by the trial court
has the potentiality to lead to the paralysis of the
conception of fair trial.”
(Emphasis supplied)

15 AIR 1955 SC 807
16 (2002) 6 SCC 470
17 (2023) 5 SCC 391
18 AIR 1965 SC 202
19 (1975) 3 SCC 39
20 (1994) Supp. 2 SCC 372
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1917

Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

20.2 Recently, a Three-Judge Bench of this Court in Ashok v.
State of Uttar Pradesh21 issued directions regarding the role
of public prosecutors and appointments of counsel through
legal aid processes, this Court held :
“23. Our conclusions and directions regarding the
role of the Public Prosecutor and appointment of
legal aid lawyers are as follows:
a. It is the duty of the Court to ensure that proper
legal aid is provided to an accused;
b. When an accused is not represented by an
advocate, it is the duty of every Public Prosecutor
to point out to the Court the requirement of
providing him free legal aid. The reason is that
it is the duty of the Public Prosecutor to ensure
that the trial is conducted fairly and lawfully;
c. Even if the Court is inclined to frame charges or
record examination-in-chief of the prosecution
witnesses in a case where the accused has not
engaged any advocate, it is incumbent upon the
Public Prosecutor to request the Court not to
proceed without offering legal aid to the accused;
c. It is the duty of the Public Prosecutor to assist
the Trial Court in recording the statement of the
accused under Section 313 of the CrPC. If the
Court omits to put any material circumstance
brought on record against the accused, the
Public Prosecutor must bring it to the notice
of the Court while the examination of the
accused is being recorded. He must assist
the Court in framing the questions to be put
to the accused. As it is the duty of the Public
Prosecutor to ensure that those who are guilty
of the commission of offence must be punished,
it is also his duty to ensure that there are no
infirmities in the conduct of the trial which will
cause prejudice to the accused;

21 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3580
1918 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

d. An accused who is not represented by an
advocate is entitled to free legal aid at all
material stages starting from remand. Every
accused has the right to get legal aid, even to
file bail petitions;
f. At all material stages, including the stage of
framing the charge, recording the evidence, etc.,
it is the duty of the Court to make the accused
aware of his right to get free legal aid. If the
accused expresses that he needs legal aid, the
Trial Court must ensure that a legal aid advocate
is appointed to represent the accused;
g. As held in the case of Anokhilal5, in all the
cases where there is a possibility of a life
sentence or death sentence, only those learned
advocates who have put in a minimum of ten
years of practice on the criminal side should be
considered to be appointed as amicus curiae or
as a legal aid advocate. Even in the cases not
covered by the categories mentioned above,
the accused is entitled to a legal aid advocate
who has good knowledge of the law and has an
experience of conducting trials on the criminal
side. It would be ideal if the Legal Services
Authorities at all levels give proper training to
the newly appointed legal aid advocates not only
by conducting lectures but also by allowing the
newly appointed legal aid advocates to work
with senior members of the Bar in a requisite
number of trials;
h. The State Legal Services Authorities shall issue
directions to the Legal Services Authorities
at all levels to monitor the work of the legal
aid advocate and shall ensure that the legal
aid advocates attend the court regularly and
punctually when the cases entrusted to them
are fixed;
i. It is necessary to ensure that the same legal
aid advocate is continued throughout the trial
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1919

Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

unless there are compelling reasons to do so
or unless the accused appoints an advocate
of his choice;
j. In the cases where the offences are of a very
serious nature and complicated legal and
factual issues are involved, the Court, instead
of appointing an empanelled legal aid advocate,
may appoint a senior member of the Bar who
has a vast experience of conducting trials to
espouse the cause of the accused so that the
accused gets best possible legal assistance;
k. The right of the accused to defend himself in a
criminal trial is guaranteed by Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. He is entitled to a fair trial.
But if effective legal aid is not made available
to an accused who is unable to engage an
advocate, it will amount to infringement of his
fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 21;
l. If legal aid is provided only for the sake of
providing it, it will serve no purpose. Legal
aid must be effective. Advocates appointed
to espouse the cause of the accused must
have good knowledge of criminal laws, law of
evidence and procedural laws apart from other
important statutes. As there is a constitutional
right to legal aid, that right will be effective only if
the legal aid provided is of a good quality. If the
legal aid advocate provided to an accused is not
competent enough to conduct the trial efficiently,
the rights of the accused will be violated.”
(Emphasis supplied)

20.3 In Shiv Kumar v. Hukam Chand22, a Three-Judge Bench of
this Court, having taken note of various judgments returned
by some High Courts, made the following observations:

22 (1999) 7 SCC 467
1920 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

“13. … A Public Prosecutor is not expected to
show a thirst to reach the case in the conviction of
the accused somehow or the other irrespective of
the true facts involved in the case. The expected
attitude of the Public Prosecutor while conducting
prosecution must be couched in fairness not only
to the court and to the investigating agencies but
to the accused as well. If an accused is entitled
to any legitimate benefit during trial the Public
Prosecutor should not scuttle/conceal it. On the
contrary, it is the duty of the Public Prosecutor to
winch it to the fore and make it available to the
accused. Even if the defence counsel overlooked it,
the Public Prosecutor has the added responsibility
to bring it to the notice of the court if it comes to
his knowledge. A private counsel, if allowed a free
hand to conduct prosecution would focus on bringing
the case to conviction even if it is not a fit case to
be so convicted. That is the reason why Parliament
applied a bridle on him and subjected his role strictly
to the instructions given by the Public Prosecutor.
xxx
14. An early decision of a Full Bench of the Allahabad
High Court in Queen-Empress v. Durga [ILR (1894-
96) 16 All 84 : 1894 AWN 7] has pinpointed the role
of a Public Prosecutor as follows:
“It is the duty of a Public Prosecutor to
conduct the case for the Crown fairly.
His object should be, not to obtain
an unrighteous conviction, but, as
representing the Crown, to see that
justice is vindicated; and, in exercising
his discretion as to the witnesses whom
he should or should not call, he should
bear that in mind. In our opinion, a Public
Prosecutor should not refuse to call or put
into the witness box for cross-examination
a truthful witness returned in the calendar
as a witness for the Crown, merely
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1921

Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

because the evidence of such witness
might in some respects be favourable to
the defence. If a Public Prosecutor is of
opinion that a witness is a false witness or
is likely to give false testimony if put into
the witness box, he is not bound, in our
opinion, to call that witness or to tender
him for cross-examination.”
16. As we are in complete agreement with the
observation of a Division Bench of the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh in Medichetty Ramakistiah v. State
of A.P. [AIR 1959 AP 659 : 1959 Cri LJ 1404] we
deem it fit to extract the said observation:
“A prosecution, to use a familiar phrase,
ought not to be a persecution. The principle
that the Public Prosecutor should be
scrupulously fair to the accused and
present his case with detachment and
without evincing any anxiety to secure a
conviction, is based upon high policy and
as such courts should be astute to suffer
no inroad upon its integrity. Otherwise
there will be no guarantee that the trial
will be as fair to the accused as a criminal
trial ought to be. The State and the Public
Prosecutor acting for it are only supposed
to be putting all the facts of the case before
the Court to obtain its decision thereon and
not to obtain a conviction by any means
fair or foul. Therefore, it is right and proper
that courts should be zealous to see that
the prosecution of an offender is not
handed over completely to a professional
gentleman instructed by a private party.” ”
20.4 In Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar23, this Court, speaking
through one of us, (Vikram Nath J.) took notice of the

23 (2023) 13 SCC 563
1922 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

observations made by the Law Commission of India in regard
to the prosecutors, as follows :
“123. Insofar as the Public Prosecutors are
concerned, a lot of comments have been made, not
only by this Court but also by the Law Commission,
highlighting the role and importance of a Public
Prosecutor. We may quote with profit the role of the
Prosecutors as stated in the 197th Law Commission
of India Report on Public Prosecutors’ Appointments
(2006) :
“…‘The Prosecutor has a duty to the
State, to the accused and to the court.
The Prosecutor is at all times a minister
of justice, though seldom so described. It
is not the duty of the prosecuting counsel
to secure a conviction, nor should any
prosecutor even feel pride or satisfaction
in the mere fact of success.”
(Emphasis in original)

124. In 154th Law Commission of India Report it
was reported as follows :
“15. …‘8. … Prosecutors are really
ministers of Justice whose job is none
other than assisting the State in the
administration of justice. They are not
representatives of any party. Their job is
to assist the court by placing before the
court all relevant aspects of the case.
They are not there to see the innocent
go to the gallows; they are also not there
to see the culprits escape conviction.’ ”
20.5 In Anees v. State (NCT of Delhi)24, a Three-Judge Bench
recently observed as follows :

24 2024 SCC OnLine SC 757
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1923

Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

“67. …The relations between the Public Prosecution
Service and the judiciary are the very cornerstone of
the criminal justice system. The public prosecutors
who are responsible for conducting prosecutions and
may appeal against the court decisions, are one of
judges’ natural counterparts in the trial proceedings
and also in the broader context of management of
the system of criminal law.”
21. The prosecutor in the present case, in our view, seemed to have
missed his duty as an officer of the Court. Change of counsel;
belated appointment of Amicus Curiae/defence counsel; closure of
opportunity to cross-examine; recording of evidence in the absence
of defence counsel are all factors that the prosecutor, in their solemn
duty ought to have objected to and brought to the notice of the Court,
as contravening the principle of a fair trial. The relevant orders in this
regard stand extracted as part of Para 13 of this opinion.
22. In earlier paragraphs of this order, we have pointed out factors
which call into question the sanctity of the sentence imposed upon
the appellant. Most of these shortfalls impact the constitutional and
statutory rights guaranteed to the accused standing trial.

(c) Rights of the Accused
23. As noticed supra, the Indian Criminal Justice System places the
accused person at a comparative disadvantage which is more
so exacerbated when the person is economically or socially less
fortunate as in the present case. This Court through various judicial
pronouncements has underscored and strengthened the rights of a
person accused of committing a crime in order to ensure that the
constitutional guarantee of Justice sees the light of the day. Some
of those pronouncements in addition to those already discussed
supra, are below:
23.1 In State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh25, this Court held :
“45. .... Prosecution cannot be permitted to take
advantage of its own wrong. Conducting a fair trial
for those who are accused of a criminal offence

25 (1999) 6 SCC 172
1924 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

is the cornerstone of our democratic society. A
conviction resulting from an unfair trial is contrary
to our concept of justice. Conducting a fair trial
is both for the benefit of the society as well as
for an accused and cannot be abandoned. While
considering the aspect of fair trial, the nature of the
evidence obtained and the nature of the safeguard
violated are both relevant factors…”
(Emphasis supplied)

23.2 In Chaluvegowda & Ors. v. State26, this Court discussed
extensively the right of representation by counsel. The relevant
paragraphs are reproduced with profit as under :
“18. The right to a fair trial is one to be enjoyed by
the guilty as well as the innocent, for an accused is
presumed to be innocent until proved to be otherwise
in a fairly conducted trial. This right would include
that he be defended by a competent counsel. The
provision of an amicus curiae for an accused, in
case the accused is unable to engage an advocate
to conduct his defence, is to ensure the goal of a fair
trial which is a guarantee provided in the Constitution.
We may recall the often quoted passage of Potter
Stewart “Fairness is what justice really is”.
19. The right to be represented by a lawyer must
not be an empty formality. It must not be a sham or
an eyewash. The appointment of an amicus curiae
for the defence of an accused person must be in
true letter and spirit, with due regard to the effective
opportunity of hearing that is to be afforded to every
accused person before being condemned. The due
process of law incorporated in our constitutional
system demands that a person not only be given an
opportunity of being heard before being condemned,
but also that such opportunity be fair, just and
reasonable.

26 (2012) 13 SCC 538
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1925

Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

20. It is appropriate to recall Powell v. Alabama [77
L Ed 158 : 287 US 45 (1932)], in which nine Black
men were accused of raping two White women, and
were charged with the same. Since the accused
were from a different State, they did not have legal
assistance, so the trial Judge, in a very vague manner,
appointed all the members of the Alabama Bar to
defend the accused. However, when the actual trial
was underway, none of the lawyers defended the
accused, but only offered to provide assistance to
the defence lawyer. Satisfied by this, the trial Judge
allowed the trial to proceed in the absence of an
effective legal assistance for the accused, and the
trial resulted in a conviction with the death sentence
accorded on the accused. The US Supreme Court
took strong exception to the procedure adopted by the
trial court. The Court held: (L Ed p. 162 : US p. 53)
“It is hardly necessary to say that the right
to counsel being conceded, a defendant
should be afforded a fair opportunity to
secure counsel of his own choice. Not
only was that not done here, but such
designation of counsel as was attempted
was either so indefinite or so close upon
the trial as to amount to a denial of effective
and substantial aid in that regard.”
21. The Court, speaking through Sutherland, J.
further held: (Powell case [77 L Ed 158 : 287 US
45 (1932)], L Ed p. 165 : US p. 58)
“…The defendants, young, ignorant,
illiterate, surrounded by hostile sentiment,
haled back and forth under guard of
soldiers, charged with an atrocious
crime regarded with especial horror in
the community where they were to be
tried, were thus put in peril of their lives
within a few moments after counsel for
the first time charged with any degree of
responsibility began to represent them.
1926 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

It is not enough to assume that counsel thus
precipitated into the case thought there was no
defence, and exercised their best judgment in
proceeding to trial without preparation.”
22. In Gideon v. Wainwright [9 L Ed 2d 799 : 372 US
335 (1963)] the US Supreme Court, approving the
above observations, laid down following principles:
(L Ed p. 805)
“… In returning to these old precedents,
sounder we believe than the new, we
but restore constitutional principles
established to achieve a fair system of
justice. Not only these precedents but
also reason and reflection require us to
recognise that in our adversary system
of criminal justice, any person haled into
court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer,
cannot be assured a fair trial unless
counsel is provided for him. This seems to
us to be an obvious truth. Governments,
both State and Federal, quite properly
spend vast sums of money to establish
machinery to try defendants accused
of crime. Lawyers to prosecute are
everywhere deemed essential to protect
the public’s interest in an orderly society.
Similarly, there are few defendants
charged with crime, few indeed, who fail
to hire the best lawyers they can get to
prepare and present their defences. That
Government hires lawyers to prosecute
and defendants who have the money
hire lawyers to defend are the strongest
indications of the widespread belief that
lawyers in criminal courts are necessities,
not luxuries. The right of one charged
with crime to counsel may not be deemed
fundamental and essential to fair trial in
some countries, but it is in ours.” ”
(Emphasis supplied)
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1927

Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

23.3 In Brijesh Kumar v. State of U.P.27, this Court underlined the
importance of legal representation and particularly for those
economically or socially less fortunate. It was observed :
“3. The right to legal representation sits at the core
of not only the right to life and liberty conferred
by Article 21 of the Constitution, but at the very
foundation of the entirety of our justice system, be
it civil or criminal. For this right to be meaningful,
it is imperative that it does not make distinctions
between the rich and the poor, the haves and
have-nots. The right to legal representation, as
necessitated by the demands of justice and equity,
must be unfazed by the economic class or financial
resources of the accused.
4. To this end was enacted the Legal Services
Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter “the 1987 Act”),
setting for itself the following object and purpose:
“… to provide free and competent legal
services to the weaker sections of the
society to ensure that opportunities for
securing justice are not denied to any
citizen by reason of economic or other
disabilities, and to organise Lok Adalats
to secure that the operation of the legal
system promotes justice on a basis of
equal opportunity.”
5. Having secured for itself the above hallowed
purpose, the Act has created a nationwide network
of Legal Services Authorities (at the National, State,
district and taluk level) for framing policies for legal
aid and services, as well as a network of Legal
Services Committees (within the Supreme Court,
the High Court and the taluk level) for the on-ground
implementation of the legal services programme at
various levels.

27 (2021) 19 SCC 177
1928 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

6. In further recognition of the need to fill a dire gap
in access to justice for the poor, it has also become
a well-settled position that, that where an accused
comes before the Court without legal representation,
the Court is duty-bound to either appoint an Amicus
Curiae or refer him to the appropriate Legal Services
Committee who shall then appoint an advocate to
represent the accused (Rakesh v. State of M.P.
[Rakesh v. State of M.P., (2011) 12 SCC 513 : (2012)
1 SCC (Cri) 613] and Sk. Mukthar v. State of A.P.
[Sk. Mukthar v. State of A.P., (2020) 19 SCC 178 :
(2021) 3 SCC (Cri) 795] ).”
23.4 Krishna Iyer, J. in M.H. Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra28, said :
“14. The other ingredient of fair procedure to a
prisoner, who has to seek his liberation through
the court process is lawyer›s services. Judicial
justice, with procedural intricacies, legal submissions
and critical examination of evidence, leans upon
professional expertise; and a failure of equal justice
under the law is on the cards where such supportive
skill is absent for one side. Our judicature, moulded
by Anglo-American models and our judicial process,
engineered by kindred legal technology, compel
the collaboration of lawyer-power for steering the
wheels of equal justice under the law.
15. Gideon›s trumpet has been heard across the
Atlantic. Black, J. there observed: [ Processual
Justice to the People, (May 1973) p. 69 (372 US
at 344 : 9 L Ed 2d at 805)]
“Not only those precedents but also reason
and reflection require us to recognise that in
our adversary system of criminal justice, any
person haled into court, who is too poor to hire
a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless
counsel is provided for him. This seems to us to

28 (1978) 3 SCC 544
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1929

Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

be an obvious truth. Governments, both State
and federal, quite properly spend vast sums of
money to establish machinery to try defendants
accused of crime. Lawyers to prosecute are
everywhere deemed essential to protect the
public’s interest in an orderly society. Similarly,
there are few defendants charged with crime
who fail to hire the best lawyers they can get
to prepare and present their defences. That
Government hires lawyers to prosecute and
defendants who have the money hires lawyers
to defend are the strongest indications of the
widespread belief that lawyers in criminal
courts are necessities, not luxuries. The right
of one charged with crime to counsel may
not be deemed fundamental and essential
to fair trials in some countries, but is in ours.
From the very beginning, our state and
national constitutions and laws have laid
great emphasis on procedural and substantive
safeguards designed to assure fair trials before
impartial tribunals in which every defendant
stands equal before the law. This noble idea
cannot be realised if the poor man charged
with crime has to face his accusers without a
lawyer to assist him.”
(Emphasis supplied)

23.5 In Suk Das v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh29, this
Court held as under :
“6. But the question is whether this fundamental
right could lawfully be denied to the appellant if he
did not apply for free legal aid. Is the exercise of
this fundamental right conditioned upon the accused
applying for free legal assistance so that if he does
not make an application for free legal assistance

29 (1986) 2 SCC 401
1930 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the trial may lawfully proceed without adequate
legal representation being afforded to him? Now
it is common knowledge that about 70 per cent
of the people living in rural areas are illiterate and
even more than that percentage of the people are
not aware of the rights conferred upon them by
law. Even literate people do not know what are
their rights and entitlements under the law. It is this
absence of legal awareness which is responsible for
the deception, exploitation and deprivation of rights
and benefits from which the poor suffer in this land.
Their legal needs always stand to become crisis-
oriented because their ignorance prevents them
from anticipating legal troubles and approaching a
lawyer for consultation and advice in time and their
poverty magnifies the impact of the legal troubles
and difficulties when they come. Moreover, because
of their ignorance and illiteracy, they cannot become
self-reliant : they cannot even help themselves.
The law ceases to be their protector because they
do not know that they are entitled to the protection
of the law and they can avail of the legal service
programme for putting an end to their exploitation
and winning their rights…”
(Emphasis supplied)

23.6 A recent judgment in Suhas Chakma v. Union of India30,
highlighted the legal aid defence counsel system, observing
that the objective of the scheme is to provide quality legal
aid to all those in need. Herein, reference was also made
to Ramanand @ Nandlal Bharti v. State of U.P.31, while
discussing the quality of legal aid and in para 120, it was held :
“120. It is by far now well-settled for a legal
proposition that it is the duty of the court to see
and ensure that an accused put on a criminal trial

30 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3031
31 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1396
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1931

Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

is effectively represented by a defence counsel,
and in the event on account of indigence, poverty
or illiteracy or any other disabling factor, he is not
able to engage a counsel of his choice, it becomes
the duty of the court to provide him appropriate and
meaningful legal aid at the State expense. What
is meant by the duty of the State to ensure a fair
defence to an accused is not the employment of
a defence counsel for namesake. It has to be the
provision of a counsel who defends the accused
diligently to the best of his abilities. While the
quality of the defence or the caliber of the counsel
would not militate against the guarantee to a fair
trial sanctioned by Articles 21 and 22 resply of the
Constitution, a threshold level of competence and
due diligence in the discharge of his duties as a
defence counsel would certainly be the constitutional
guaranteed expectation. The presence of counsel
on record means effective, genuine and faithful
presence and not a mere farcical, sham or a virtual
presence that is illusory, if not fraudulent.”
(Emphasis supplied)

23.7 In Anokhilal v. State of M.P.32, a Three-Judge Bench of this
Court summarized certain principles regarding the grant of
free legal aid, and the same being ‘real and meaningful’, while
setting aside a judgment of conviction, noticing the absence
thereof. [See: Paragraphs 31 to 31.4]
24. Having considered the rights and guarantees in favour of the accused,
we now examine the record. One of the primary issues that revealed
itself is inadequate representation by counsel for the appellant. On
various crucial dates, such as the committal of proceedings to the
concerned Trial Court (compliance of Section 209 Cr.P.C.) and the
examination-in-chief of the primary witness of the prosecution, i.e.,
PW-2, the appellant was not represented or adequately so.

32 (2019) 20 SCC 196
1932 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

25. What is apparent, therefore, is that the statements of PW-1 and PW-2,
i.e., the complainant and star witness respectively of the prosecution,
were recorded in the absence of counsel for the accused. Opportunity
for cross-examination also stood closed qua PW-1 which, in our view,
cannot be countenanced. If a trial is conducted in such a manner,
the argument of prejudice will be available to the accused. Presence
of the accused’s counsel at the time of recording of the statement
is necessary. [See: Ekene Godwin v. State of T.N.33]
26. This Court has, in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab34 also spoken of
the purpose of cross-examination, they are: a) to call into question,
credibly the evidentiary value of the witness; b) to bring out such
facts, that may favour the cross-examining lawyer’s client; and c) to
establish the said witness, is unworthy of belief, and that his credit
stands impeached.
27. In the same vein, the effect of counsel not being present in Court
on crucial dates, and its effect on the sanctity of the entire exercise
of prosecution has to be considered. The matter begins before the
Trial Court on 20th October 2014. Save the two occasions, i.e., on 1st
September 2015 and 8th June 2016, nowhere does the record state
that counsel for the accused was absent35 and on the latter date,
an Amicus Curie was appointed. On 21st February 2017, a different/
new lawyer was appointed as counsel for the accused, and on the
same day, the matter was put up for judgment.
28. This frequent change in counsel as also the matter being reserved
for judgment on the very day that a new counsel for the accused is
brought on record, leads us to question the assistance given to the
appellant by such lawyers. Was his case effectively argued? Were
all the possible gaps in the prosecution case sufficiently explored
and exploited to his advantage? Were the prosecution witnesses
ably cross-examined leading to the creation of a reasonable doubt,
wherever possible? All these questions arise in our mind, considering
the situation of the defence counsel. To us, the imposition of the
death penalty here appears fraught with danger and should not be
sustained. We are supported in holding such an apprehension by

33 2024 SCC OnLine SC 337
34 (1994) 3 SCC 569
35 Whereas on other dates his presence was recorded.
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1933

Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

the fact that this Court has recognized that sufficient time should be
given to counsel to prepare the case and conduct the same on behalf
of his client. Although, it is true that there can be no formulae for
what may be considered sufficient, the same has to be determined
in the facts and circumstances of the case. [See: Bashira v. State
of U.P.36] As has already been noticed, there was a change of
counsel recorded in the daily status of the Trial Court, arguments
were closed on the very same day and the matter was reserved for
judgment. What is the efficiency of the newly appointed counsel’s
assistance to the appellant? This question stares in the face of the
conclusion of capital punishment arrived at by the Court, more so
when there was a frequent change of counsel during trial, losing out
the continuity of thought process.

Rights under Section 311 and 313 Cr.P.C.
29. Additionally, we may note the manner in which the application to
recall under Section 311 was filed and the statement of the accused
in Section 313 Cr.P.C. was refused and recorded respectively,
is rendered questionable in the sum total of circumstance. Both
rights under these Sections are important for a trial to reach a just
conclusion. This principle has been repeatedly emphasized by this
Court through various judgments.
30. On Section 311 and the rejection of the application, we may refer
to the observations of this Court in the Zahira Habibullah Sheikh
(5) v. State of Gujarat37. It was said :
“26… The section is manifestly in two parts. Whereas
the word used in the first part is “may”, the second part
uses “shall”. In consequence, the first part gives purely
discretionary authority to a criminal court and enables it at
any stage of an enquiry, trial or proceeding under the Code
(a) to summon anyone as a witness, or (b) to examine any
person present in the court, or (c) to recall and re-examine
any person whose evidence has already been recorded. On
the other hand, the second part is mandatory and compels
the court to take any of the aforementioned steps if the

36 1968 SCC OnLine SC 84
37 (2006) 3 SCC 374
1934 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

new evidence appears to it essential to the just decision
of the case. This is a supplementary provision enabling,
and in certain circumstances imposing on the court the
duty of examining a material witness who would not be
otherwise brought before it. It is couched in the widest
possible terms and calls for no limitation, either with regard
to the stage at which the powers of the court should be
exercised, or with regard to the manner in which it should
be exercised. It is not only the prerogative but also the plain
duty of a court to examine such of those witnesses as it
considers absolutely necessary for doing justice between
the State and the subject. There is a duty cast upon the
court to arrive at the truth by all lawful means and one of
such means is the examination of witnesses of its own
accord when for certain obvious reasons either party is
not prepared to call witnesses who are known to be in a
position to speak important relevant facts.
27. The object underlying Section 311 of the Code is
that there may not be failure of justice on account of
mistake of either party in bringing the valuable evidence
on record or leaving ambiguity in the statements of the
witnesses examined from either side. The determinative
factor is whether it is essential to the just decision of the
case. The section is not limited only for the benefit of the
accused, and it will not be an improper exercise of the
powers of the court to summon a witness under the section
merely because the evidence supports the case of the
prosecution and not that of the accused. The section is a
general section which applies to all proceedings, enquiries
and trials under the Code and empowers the Magistrate
to issue summons to any witness at any stage of such
proceedings, trial or enquiry. In Section 311 the significant
expression that occurs is “at any stage of any inquiry or
trial or other proceeding under this Code”. It is, however,
to be borne in mind that whereas the section confers a
very wide power on the court on summoning witnesses,
the discretion conferred is to be exercised judiciously,
as the wider the power the greater is the necessity for
application of judicial mind.
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1935

Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

28. As indicated above, the section is wholly discretionary.
The second part of it imposes upon the Magistrate an
obligation : it is, that the court shall summon and examine
all persons whose evidence appears to be essential to
the just decision of the case. It is a cardinal rule in the
law of evidence that the best available evidence should
be brought before the court…
29. The object of Section 311 is to bring on record
evidence not only from the point of view of the accused
and the prosecution but also from the point of view of
the orderly society. If a witness called by the court gives
evidence against the complainant, he should be allowed an
opportunity to cross-examine. The right to cross-examine
a witness who is called by a court arises not under the
provisions of Section 311, but under the Evidence Act which
gives a party the right to cross-examine a witness who is
not his own witness. Since a witness summoned by the
court could not be termed a witness of any particular party,
the court should give the right of cross-examination to the
complainant. These aspects were highlighted in Jamatraj
Kewalji Govani v. State of Maharashtra [(1967) 3 SCR
415 : AIR 1968 SC 178 : 1968 Cri LJ 231] .”
(Emphasis supplied)

[See also: Jamatraj Kewalji Govani v. State of Maharashtra38;
Rajendra Prasad v. Narcotic Cell39; Vijay Kumar v. State of U.P.40;
Natasha Singh v. CBI41; Rajaram Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar42;
State v. N. Seenivasagan43; and Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana44]
30.1 A perusal and consideration of the aforesaid decisions reveal
the following principles as governing the application of Section
311 Cr.P.C. :

38 1967 SCC OnLine SC 19
39 (1999) 6 SCC 110
40 (2011) 8 SCC 136
41 (2013) 5 SCC 741
42 (2013) 14 SCC 461
43 (2021) 14 SCC 1
44 2023 SCC OnLine 1086
1936 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(a) The Section is divided into two parts, the first being
directory with the use of the word ‘may’ and the latter
being mandatory with the use of the word ‘shall’.
(b) The power of the Court is couched in the widest
terms possible with no express limitation thereon.
(c) The exercise of such power is not only the prerogative
but also the duty of the Court, in connection with a
witness who may be considered absolutely necessary,
in the interest of justice.
(d) This power is to be used both for the benefit of the
prosecution and the defence. To summon a witness
because it serves the case of one of the parties and
not the other, would be improper.
(e) This power can be exercised at any stage of
proceedings, i.e. enquiry, trial or any other.
(f) Power is to be exercised judiciously since wider the
power, greater the requirement of the application of
a judicial mind.
(g) If a witness so-called under this power, gives evidence
against the complainant, the latter should be given
an opportunity to cross-examination. This power
arises not under Section 311 but under the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872.
(h) A witness cannot be recalled by the use of this power
to simply fill up a lacuna in the case of the prosecution.
31. The order rejecting the application to recall witnesses, dated 18th
February 2017 reads as below:
“18.02.2017- Case called out Accused present in J.C. But
not present. Counsel heared on application 32-B brief
order is passed on the application. After lunch on 2.30
P.M. an application for time to adduce defence witness
35-B moved by defence counsel. Order passed on the
application “Vide order of even date, application u/s 311
moved by Ld counsel has been rejected. He sought time
to adduce arguments which was granted. After which, he
has moved application for providing defence evidence.
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1937

Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

If the Ld. Counsel produce the witness on the date fixed
he will be examined failing which matter will be posted
for Judgment after hearing argument of the prosecution.”
(A.S.J. 1st)”

Such a summary rejection, in our view, is unjustified. The object and
purpose of this power of wide amplitude resting with the Trial Court
has been detailed in Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (5) (supra). Given
that the counsel for the accused had been changed, an additional
charge has been added against the accused and that it had taken
over two years to record the evidence of the witnesses, taking the
sum total of circumstances, such an application should have been
allowed.
32. Let us now consider, the examination of the accused under Section
313. In a recent judgment titled Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi)45,
this Court summarised the principles regarding Section 313 Cr.P.C.,
while also observing that if prejudice is caused to the appellant in
non-observance of these principles, the trial would vitiate. [See:
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra46] The principles
are reproduced below for ready reference:
“17. The law consistently laid down by this Court can be
summarized as under :
(i) It is the duty of the Trial Court to put each material
circumstance appearing in the evidence against the
accused specifically, distinctively and separately. The
material circumstance means the circumstance or the
material on the basis of which the prosecution is seeking
his conviction;
(ii) The object of examination of the accused under Section
313 is to enable the accused to explain any circumstance
appearing against him in the evidence;
(iii) The Court must ordinarily eschew material circumstances
not put to the accused from consideration while dealing
with the case of the particular accused;

45 2023 SCC OnLine SC 609
46 (1973) 2 SCC 793
1938 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

(iv) The failure to put material circumstances to the
accused amounts to a serious irregularity. It will vitiate
the trial if it is shown to have prejudiced the accused;
(v) If any irregularity in putting the material circumstance to
the accused does not result in failure of justice, it becomes
a curable defect. However, while deciding whether the
defect can be cured, one of the considerations will be
the passage of time from the date of the incident;
(vi) In case such irregularity is curable, even the
appellate court can question the accused on the material
circumstance which is not put to him;
(vii) In a given case, the case can be remanded to the
Trial Court from the stage of recording the supplementary
statement of the concerned accused under Section 313
of CrPC; and
(viii) While deciding the question whether prejudice has
been caused to the accused because of the omission, the
delay in raising the contention is only one of the several
factors to be considered.”
(Emphasis supplied)

32.1 The statement recorded under Section 313 of the accused
is as below :
“Name - Sovaran Singh
Father’s Name - Babura,
Age - 35
Occupation - Labourer
R/o - Rooppur
Thana - Karhal
District - Mainpuri
Question 1 - It is well known that you have married
Mamta, the plaintiff in this case.
What do you have to say about this?
Answer - That is correct.
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1939

Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Question 2 - The prosecution says that on the day
of the incident, dated 30.06.14, at about 11-12 in
the night, you killed your daughter by holding her
by the legs, lifting her, throwing her on the ground
and keeping your foot on her neck. What do they
call this?
Answer - That is incorrect.
Question 3 - The prosecution says that on 30.06.14
at about 11-12 in the night, you killed your wife
Smt. Mamta by hitting her with bricks, stones and
bamboo and you scraped the blood from the ground
and threw it somewhere, what do you have to say
about this?
Answer - That is incorrect.
Question 4 - It is noteworthy that the complainant
Mr. Rajnesh Kumar gave the report of the incident
as Exhibit-1 to the police station, according to which
an FIR was lodged which is Exhibit-6, which was
disclosed in GD which is Exhibit-7, what do you
have to say about this?
Answer - Has given false testimony.
Question 5 - Prosecution says that after registration
of the case in the police station, the investigation
was taken over by the investigating officer and on
reaching the spot of incident, on the indication of
the plaintiff, he made a map of the spot, which is
Exhibit-10 and Exhibit-11. And under the supervision
of the investigating officer, a Panchnama of the
deceased Smt. Mamta was prepared and all the
police records were prepared, which are Exhibit-1
and Exhibit-18. He also prepared the Panchnama
of the deceased Kumari Sapna and prepared police
records, which are Exhibit-19 and Exhibit-23. What
do you have to say in this regard?
Answer - I don’t want to say anything.
Question 6 - Prosecution says that the investigator
prepared the report on the spot by taking soil, soil
1940 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

and blood stains from the crime scene, which is
Exhibit-9. What do you have to say about this?
Answer - I don’t want to say anything.
Question 7 - You heard the statements of witnesses
PW1 Rajnesh Kumar, plaintiff, PW2 Kumari Poonam.
Why do the witnesses testify against you?
Answer - It is false testimony only.
Question 8 - You heard the statements of witnesses
PW1 Rajnesh Kumar, plaintiff, PW4 Kumar Ramveer
Singh, PW5 Inspector Balveer Singh, investigating
officer, PW6 Omveer Singh. Why do the witnesses
testify?
Answer - Due to animosity.
Question 9 - The prosecution is true that you got
the murder weapon, a lathi (bamboo), recovered
on your indication by the investigating officer, the
report of which was prepared by the investigating
officer on the spot, which is Exhibit-12. What do
you have to say about this?
Answer - This is incorrect.
Question 10 - Prosecution Evidence that I0 submitted
a charge sheet against you Ex. 13 based on the
availability of enough evidence. What do you have
to say about it?
Answer - The wrong Charge-sheet has been
submitted.
Question 11 - Do you want to say anymore?
Answer - I don’t want to say anything.
Question 12 - Why is the case registered against
you?
Answer - Due to animosity.
Question 13 - Any clarifications you would like to
give?
Answer - Yes.”
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1941

Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

32.2 The factors summarised in Raj Kumar (supra) were clearly not
followed. All the incriminating circumstances were not put to the
accused. General, sweeping questions were employed, which
were only denied by him. Here, the role of the prosecutor also
requires to be highlighted. It is incumbent upon them to aid
the Court in preparing questions to be put to the accused. It
has also been held in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade (supra) that
prejudice can be caused, if the statements are not properly
recorded. We find there to be adequate possibility that the
appellant has been prejudiced.

Obligations under International Law
33. The Indian Constitution enjoins a responsibility upon all persons to
foster respect for international law.47 The Universal Declaration of
Human Rights 1948, which is considered the foremost document
in International Human Rights Law, records guarantees for fairness
in criminal procedure on two occasions, i.e., Articles 10 and 11.
They read :
“Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public
hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the
determination of his rights and obligations and of any
criminal charge against him.
Article 11
1. Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right
to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to
law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees
necessary for his defence.
2. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on
account of any act or omission which did not constitute a
penal offence, under national or international law, at the
time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty
be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time
the penal offence was committed.”

47 See: Article 51(c) the Constitution of India
1942 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

33.1 Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, 1966, which was ratified by India in 1979, guarantees
equality to all persons before the law. It is extracted as below48 :
“1. All persons shall be equal before the courts
and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal
charge against him, or of his rights and obligations
in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair
and public hearing by a competent, independent and
impartial tribunal established by law. The press and
the public may be excluded from all or part of a trial
for reasons of morals, public order (ordre public) or
national security in a democratic society, or when
the interest of the private lives of the parties so
requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the
opinion of the court in special circumstances where
publicity would prejudice the interests of justice; but
any judgement rendered in a criminal case or in a
suit at law shall be made public except where the
interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires or
the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or
the guardianship of children.
2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall
have the right to be presumed innocent until proved
guilty according to law.
3. In the determination of any criminal charge against
him, everyone shall be entitled to the following
minimum guarantees, in full equality:
(a) To be informed promptly and in detail in a
language which he understands of the nature and
cause of the charge against him;
(b) To have adequate time and facilities for the
preparation of his defence and to communicate with
counsel of his own choosing;
(c) To be tried without undue delay;

48 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-
mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1943

Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

(d) To be tried in his presence, and to defend himself
in person or through legal assistance of his own
choosing; to be informed, if he does not have legal
assistance, of this right; and to have legal assistance
assigned to him, in any case where the interests of
justice so require, and without payment by him in
any such case if he does not have sufficient means
to pay for it;
(e) To examine, or have examined, the witnesses
against him and to obtain the attendance and
examination of witnesses on his behalf under the
same conditions as witnesses against him;
(f) To have the free assistance of an interpreter if
he cannot understand or speak the language used
in court;
(g) Not to be compelled to testify against himself
or to confess guilt.
4. In the case of juvenile persons, the procedure
shall be such as will take account of their age and
the desirability of promoting their rehabilitation.
5. Everyone convicted of a crime shall have the right
to his conviction and sentence being reviewed by
a higher tribunal according to law.
6. When a person has by a final decision
been convicted of a criminal offence and when
subsequently his conviction has been reversed or
he has been pardoned on the ground that a new
or newly discovered fact shows conclusively that
there has been a miscarriage of justice, the person
who has suffered punishment as a result of such
conviction shall be compensated according to law,
unless it is proved that the non-disclosure of the
unknown fact in time is wholly or partly attributable
to him.
7. No one shall be liable to be tried or punished
again for an offence for which he has already been
1944 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the
law and penal procedure of each country.”
33.2 The International Criminal Court, which has been created by
the Rome Statute to investigate and where warranted, try
“individuals charged with the gravest crimes of concern to
the international community: genocide, war crimes, crimes
against humanity and the crime of aggression.”49 Article 67
thereof guarantees, in proceedings before it, the rights of an
accused in the following terms :
“Article 67
Rights of the accused
In the determination of any charge, the accused shall
be entitled to a public hearing, having regard to the
provisions of this Statute, to a fair hearing conducted
impartially, and to the following minimum guarantees,
in full equality:
(a) To be informed promptly and in detail
of the nature, cause and content of the
charge, in a language which the accused
fully understands and speaks;
(b) To have adequate time and facilities
for the preparation of the defence and to
communicate freely with counsel of the
accused’s choosing in confidence;
(c) To be tried without undue delay;
(d) Subject to article 63, paragraph 2, to be
present at the trial, to conduct the defence
in person or through legal assistance of the
accused’s choosing, to be informed, if the
accused does not have legal assistance,
of this right and to have legal assistance
assigned by the Court in any case where

49 https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/the-court
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1945

Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

the interests of justice so require, and
without payment if the accused lacks
sufficient means to pay for it;
(e) To examine, or have examined, the
witnesses against him or her and to
obtain the attendance and examination of
witnesses on his or her behalf under the
same conditions as witnesses against him
or her. The accused shall also be entitled
to raise defences and to present other
evidence admissible under this Statute;
(f)To have, free of any cost, the assistance
of a competent interpreter and such
translations as are necessary to meet
the requirements of fairness, if any of the
proceedings of or documents presented
to the Court are not in a language which
the accused fully understands and speaks;
(g) Not to be compelled to testify or to
confess guilt and to remain silent, without
such silence being a consideration in the
determination of guilt or innocence;
(h) To make an unsworn oral or written
statement in his or her defence; and
(i) Not to have imposed on him or her any
reversal of the burden of proof or any onus
of rebuttal.
3. In addition to any other disclosure provided for in this
Statute, the Prosecutor shall, as soon as practicable,
disclose to the defence evidence in the Prosecutor’s
possession or control which he or she believes shows
or tends to show the innocence of the accused, or
to mitigate the guilt of the accused, or which may
affect the credibility of prosecution evidence. In case
of doubt as to the application of this paragraph, the
Court shall decide.”
1946 [2025] 2 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

What rights of an accused being codified in the Rome Statute signifies
is that even when it comes to the gravest and most heinous crimes
committed against humanity as a whole, a person accused of having
so committed such offences is also entitled to basic protection under
the law. In our facts, ending someone’s life is, in fact, one of the
gravest crimes that a person may commit, and so even here the
accused is entitled to the protection of law ensuring that the process
that condemns him as ‘convicted of an offence’, is free of procedural
irregularities and blemishes which may call into question the credibility
of the conclusion arrived at by such a process.
The sole purpose of reproduction of the above articles is to restate
and emphasize the commitment to international law. All prosecutions
and conclusions of either guilt or innocence must give due importance
and primacy to these obligations along with constitutional and statutory
guarantees as discussed supra.
34. Before parting with these matters, we may observe the casual manner
in which the prosecution and the trial proceeded. Record reveals set
for examination of witnesses was 13th January, 2015 whereafter, on 15
occasions till 14th August 2015, the accused was present from judicial
custody the matter was adjourned as witnesses were not present.
No explanation can be found for this lackadaisical approach of the
prosecution. In fact, till 1st June 2015, the matter was adjourned on
33 occasions and only once on 1st September 2015 was one witness
examined. Over a trial period of 2.3 years, the matter was posted on
74 occasions and surprisingly, for a variety of reasons including the
majority thereof being non-production of witnesses, was adjourned
on 52 occasions approximately. In a matter of this nature, it cannot
be stressed enough that the examination of witnesses and smooth
conduct of trial is essential which obviously, was given a go-by.
35. In view of the above discussion, the judgments of the Trial Court
convicting the appellant of the charged offence and awarding
capital punishment and confirmation thereof by the High Court, with
particulars as mentioned in Para 1 cannot be sustained and, as such,
is set aside. The Appeals are accordingly allowed. The matters are
remanded to the Trial Court and restored on the respective docket.
The Trial Court shall proceed afresh from the stage of framing of
charge. Trial is expedited. It shall proceed, to the extent possible on
a day-to-day basis. Parties shall appear before the Trial Court on 18th
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1947

Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

March 2025 and fully cooperate during trial. It is requested that the
matter be heard and judgment delivered within a period of one year.
36. In conclusion, we may observe the importance of compliance with
the principles of law and procedural rigours, since now, due to such
clear non-compliance all parties to the dispute shall have to go
through the process of trial once more and relive the horrific offence
committed against the two deceased persons, namely, Smt. Mamta
and Kumari Sapna. Courts must give due regard to such aspects
and not be swayed by the emotions that the offence may evoke.
37. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Registrar
General, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad who shall ensure its
swift passage to the concerned court.
Pending application(s) if any, are disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeals allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Raghav Bhatia, Hony. Associate Editor
(Verified by: Liz Mathew, Sr. Adv.)