# Sovaran Singh Prajapati v. The State of Uttar Pradesh

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 225
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-02-04
- **Bench:** Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, Sandeep Mehta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sovaran-singh-prajapati-v-the-state-of-uttar-pradesh-38304
- **Pages:** 58

## Headnote

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]

## Text

_Characters 0–39,949 of 107,368. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39949 for what follows._

[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 wellestablished 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.