Martin V.D., accused in the Kalamassery Jehovah’s Witnesses convention centre blast case, may lose his right for an “informed defence” in court following his decision to argue the case as a party in person, besides burdening the court with the responsibility of alerting him of his rights and guiding him through the proceedings.
The stand of the accused, who apparently has no exposure to legal procedures and formalities of a criminal trial, would force the court to constantly remind him of his rights and privileges as they could possibly be compromised in the absence of a defence lawyer, according to judicial sources.
Martin had on Tuesday informed the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, that he wanted to put across the arguments in his voice though the judge had offered him the service of defence lawyers engaged by the State. The October 29 blast had killed three persons and injured 50.
Forsaking of the service of a criminal lawyer could lead to a situation where no effective defence could take place. Such a situation could give the prosecution a free run. In such an event, the court will have to ensure that no inadmissible evidence is brought in by the prosecution and a fair trial is held. The court will also have to be cautious to prevent a mistrial and miscarriage of justice, sources said.
No legal training
There have been instances where legally trained accused had effectively conducted their cases as a party in person. However, Martin doesn’t appear to belong to the league. The accused can revoke his decision and engage a lawyer of his choice at any stage of the trial, sources pointed out.
Even if the accused pleads guilty, the trial court cannot straight away accept it but will have to examine the evidence gathered by the prosecution to ascertain the truth. It will also have to give the accused time to reflect on the decision and apprise him of the consequences of the decision. The nature and quantum of punishment that could befall on him shall also be explained, judicial sources said, considering the probability of the accused admitting his guilt.
The accused had surrendered before the police hours after the blast and confessed to the crime. He had also made a video telecast owning up the responsibility of the act before surrendering to the police.
