Suk Das & Anr

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?

2. Whether it is obligatory on him to make an application for free legal assistance?

3. Whether the magistrate or session judge trying is bound to inform him that he is
entitled to free legal aid?

4. Whether he wishes to have a lawyer provide to him at state cost?

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.

High Court Decision:

The high court upheld the conviction of the appellant on the ground that no application was
made by him for free legal aid services, before the additional deputy commissioner and
therefore, it could not said that failure to provide legal assistant vitiated the trail.

Supreme Court Decision:

Appeal by special leave under article 136 of constitution made to Supreme Court. SC held
that the conviction and sentence recorded against appellant is set aside and order dismissing
appellant from service on the basis of his conviction by the learned additional deputy
commissioner must also be quashed.

Appeal allowed.