Whether accused can plead that he was convicted due to fault of his advocate?
Right to get proper legal assistance plays a crucial role in adversarial system, since access to counsel’s skill and knowledge is necessary to accord the accused an ample opportunity to meet the case of the prosecution. In Charles E. Strickland case (supra), the US Court held that a convicted defendant alleging ineffective assistance of counsel must show not only that counsel was not functioning as the counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment so as to provide reasonable effective assistance, but also that counsel’s errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial. Court held that the defiant convict should also show that because of a reasonable probability, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the results would have been different. The Court also held as follows:
“Judicial scrutiny of counsel’s performance must be highly deferential, and a fair assessment of attorney performance requires that every effort be made to eliminate the distorting effects of hindsight, to reconstruct the circumstances of counsel’s challenged conduct, and to evaluate the conduct from counsel’s perspective at the time. A court must indulge a strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. These standards require no special amplification in order to define counsel’s duty to investigate, the duty at issue in this case.”
36. The Court, in determining whether prejudice resulted from a criminal defence counsel’s ineffectiveness, must consider the totality of the evidence. When an accused challenges a death sentence on the ground of prejudicially ineffective representation of the counsel, the question is whether there is a reasonable probability that, absent the errors, the Court independently reweighs the evidence, would have concluded that the balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances did not warrant the death sentence.
37. When we apply the above test to the facts of this case, we are not prepared to say that the accused was not given proper legal assistance by the counsel appeared before the trial Court as well as before the High Court.1
Supreme Court of India
Ashok Debbarma @ Achak Debbarma vs State Of Tripura on 4 March, 2014
K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
