Niranjan Das @ Niru Das @ Mahanto vs The State of West Bengal

Introduction

This case concerns the right to adequate legal representation in criminal proceedings. The appellant, Niranjan Das, was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Calcutta High Court upheld the conviction; however, the Supreme Court of India found that the appellant did not receive proper legal assistance during the High Court appeal. The Court emphasized that the right to effective legal counsel is integral to the principles of natural justice and fair trial, and remanded the case for reconsideration.

Background / Facts of the Case

• The trial court convicted both the appellant, Niranjan Das, and a co-accused, Subodh Rajbanshi, under Section 302 IPC for murder.

• The convictions were independent, as the court did not apply Section 34 IPC (common intention).

• During the High Court appeal, the appellant was unrepresented.

• On the day of the hearing, the High Court appointed an empanelled advocate to represent him but did not grant sufficient time for case preparation.

• The appointed counsel incorrectly argued on the basis of common intention (Section 34 IPC), which was irrelevant to the appellant’s conviction.

• The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence.

• The appellant then filed Special Leave Petitions (Crl.) Nos. 6854–6855 of 2023 before the Supreme Court.

Issues of the Case

1. Whether the High Court erred in failing to provide adequate opportunity and time for effective legal representation to the appointed counsel in a life imprisonment appeal?

2. Whether the High Court’s decision, delivered without proper legal assistance to the accused, violated the principles of natural justice and the right to fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution?

Judgment

The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction upheld by the Calcutta High Court and remanding the case for fresh consideration.

1. Violation of Right to Fair Representation

• The Court stressed that the right to legal aid and effective representation is fundamental, especially in serious criminal cases involving life imprisonment.

• The appointed advocate’s lack of preparation and misdirected arguments (relying on Section 34 IPC) showed that she was not adequately briefed.

• The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s conduct denied the appellant a fair opportunity to defend himself.

2. Setting Aside the Conviction

• The Supreme Court ruled that the High Court judgment was procedurally unjust and therefore unsustainable.

• The conviction and sentence of the appellant were set aside, and the matter was remanded to the High Court for a fresh hearing.

3. Bail Granted

• Considering that the appellant had already served over eight years in prison, the Court directed his release on bail, subject to terms fixed by the trial court.

4. Appointment of Fresh Counsel

• The appellant agreed to engage new counsel for representation before the High Court.

• The Supreme Court directed the High Court to list the matter on November 20, 2023, for further hearing.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that adequate legal representation is indispensable to a fair trial, forming part of the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. It held that the High Court’s failure to provide the appointed counsel sufficient time to prepare constituted a serious breach of natural justice. As a result, the conviction was set aside, and the case was remanded for a fair rehearing. The judgment underscores the judiciary’s duty to ensure due process, especially when an accused faces serious criminal charges without proper legal assistance.