Learned counsel for the Appellant has laid a lot of stress on an informed consent. A perusal of the order-sheets as noted above would show that the present is a case where repeated offers for providing legal aid were made to the Appellant, however he did not cooperate in the same.
Even applying the strict standards laid down as above, it is evident that the Appellant was quite conscious of his acts and took decisions knowing all facts intelligently. Despite different Judges offering him counsel at State expense, he at times voluntarily accepted and then refused to accept them. When the witnesses were present or recalled, he refused to examine them. It is thus apparent from the conduct of the Appellant that he had taken up an uncooperative attitude in the proceedings and it was a clear conscious decision on his part to ensure that the trial does not proceed further. An informed consent to waive the right to a counsel has to be inferred from the facts of the case. The Appellant was made aware of his right to a counsel and offered repeatedly. He would exercise his choice as per his requirements. Thus, on the facts of the case, it cannot be said that there was a denial of the constitutional right of fair trial to the Appellant.
Delhi High Court
Satish Kumar S/O Acharyanand vs State on 3 May, 2013