15.During argument, a fervent attempt was made on the side of the appellant by his learned counsel that it is a clear case of laxity, which was exhibited by the learned advocate, who appeared for the appellant, in trial proceedings. According to him, he did not participate in the trial proceedings properly and case diary shows that in most of time, when the witnesses were to be cross examined, he was not available in the Court and had not cross examined the witnesses properly.
16.According to him, when the life and liberty of a person is involved, care and caution ought to have been taken not only by the defence counsel, but, also by the Court. When this argument was advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, we were of the opinion that when the defence counsel did not choose to cross examine any one of the witnesses or fail to cross examine the witnesses or did not take part in
the proceedings properly, the little thing that can be done by the Trial Court is only to see that the accused is properly represented and the Trial Court cannot insist upon the defence counsel to put a particular question in a particular manner and to take a particular defence. This is within the realm of the accused and his counsel. The Court cannot either advise, interfere or act in aid of defence counsel. So, we were not impressed the way, in which, the arguments were advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant.
17.Here, it is not a case of non-participation or non-appearance of defence counsel. The appellant has chosen to appoint defence counsel on his own choice. So, it is for him to take proper care and caution in seeing that his counsel was present in the Court and took all necessary steps to defend him.
18. However, perusal of record and evidence shows that the prosecution witnesses were not cross examined mostly on the date of chief examination. They were let out without cross and after a lapse of two years, the prosecution witnesses were recalled and cross examined. Even at that time, some of the witnesses were not recalled and cross examined. So, the conduct of the defence counsel before the Trial Court is not approved by this Court.
PARTY: A.Sebastian vs. The Inspector of Police, Kumapatti Police Station, Virudhunagar District. (Crime No.95 of 2010) – Crl.A(MD)No.262 of 2020 & Crl.MP(MD)No.4046 of 2020 – 04.03.2021.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/index.php/casestatus/viewpdf/768199
Source: Download
