Suk Das & Anr vs. Union Territory of Arunachal Pardesh. (AIR 1986 SC 991) Facts
Suk Das & Anr vs. Union Territory of Arunachal Pardesh. (AIR 1986 SC 991) Facts
Suk Das & Anr vs. Union Territory of Arunachal Pardesh. (AIR 1986 SC 991) Facts
vs.
Union Territory of Arunachal Pardesh.
(AIR 1986 SC 991)
Facts
The appellant and five other accused were charged in the court for an offence under “section
506” read with “section 34” of Indian penal code on the allegation that they threatened an
assistant engineer of the central public works department with a view to compelling him to
cancel the transfer order of the accused which had been passed by him.
The appellant was not represented by any lawyer since he was admittedly unable to afford
legal representative on account of his poverty and the result was that he could not cross
examine some of the witnesses of prosecution. At the end of the trail four of the accused were
acquitted but the appellant and another accused were acquitted were convicted of the
aforesaid offence and he was sentenced to undergo for a period of two years.
Legal issues:
1. Whether an accused who on account of his poverty is unable to afford legal
representation for himself in a trail involving possibilities of imprisonment imperilling
his personal liberty, is entitled to free legal aid at state cost?
3. Whether the magistrate or session judge trying is bound to inform him that he is
entitled to free legal aid?
5. If he is not represented by any lawyer in the trial and is convicted, is that conviction
vitiated and liable to be set aside?
Law points:
“Section 506” of Indian Penal Code: - punishment for criminal intimation. If threat to
be cause death or grievous hurt etc.
“Section 34” of Indian Penal Code: - act done by several persons in furtherance of
common intension.
Appellant contention
Appellant contended that he was not provided free legal aid for his defence and trail was
therefore vitiated.
Appeal allowed.