CHENNAI: Holding that the right to put forth oral arguments is not only a statutory right but also assumes the character of a fundamental right, the Madras High Court has set aside a trial court’s sentence of life imprisonment to a father and his son on the ground that the judgment was passed without the oral arguments of the defence side.
The court also remitted the matter to the trial court for recording the oral arguments of the accused and passing the judgment.
The order was passed recently by a division bench of justices G R Swaminathan and V Lakshminarayanan allowing the criminal appeal filed by C Chinnavan @ C Govindaraj and his son Thangabalu of Salem challenging the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded for murder by the Third Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem, on March 2, 2022.
The bench came to know about the judgment passed without oral arguments of the defence while hearing a petition seeking parole for attending the marriage of Chinnavan’s daughter.
The bench said sections 234 and 314 (1) of the CrPC speak of the entitlement of the accused to put forth his arguments after the evidence has been taken. This is not a mere right conferred on the accused. It is one of the facets of fair trial.
Citing Section 235 (4) of the CrPC, the bench said nowhere does the legislature grant the trial court the power to dispense with oral arguments altogether.
“We reiterate that the right to advance oral arguments is not only a statutory right but also assumes the character of a fundamental right. This is because oral submission is a material part of a fair trial. If the accused does not avail this right, in the larger interest of justice, the trial judge is obliged to appoint a legal aid counsel or an amicus,” the bench said in the order.
Setting aside the impugned judgment, it directed the trial court to call upon the prosecution and the accused persons to advance arguments, and if the accused are not cooperating, then an amicus curiae shall be appointed to argue the case before passing judgment.
However, the bench added that it has not gone into the merits of the case and the matter is remitted only for the purpose of hearing the arguments on both sides.