New Delhi, Jul 23 A Delhi court has rejected an application seeking to prevent Aaftab Amin Poonawala, an accused in the murder of Shraddha Walkar, from sitting next to his lawyer during trial proceedings, saying an accused cannot be denied proper seating or treated in a manner that reflects "disgust" or "vengeance".
Additional Sessions Judge Hargurvarinder Singh Jaggi passed the order after counsel for the complainant objected to Aaftab sitting adjacent to the advocates' desk during the recording of evidence in the murder case.
In an order dated July 22, the court said, "Court has often permitted the accused, Aaftab to sit closely along with his police escort, behind or in close proximity to the defence counsel for ease of communication, which is in the vicinity of the Advocates' Desk".
Declining the request, the court said it had earlier dealt with a similar objection and had consistently allowed Aaftab to sit behind or close to his defence counsel, along with his police escort, to facilitate communication during the trial.
It said requiring the accused to sit in a corner of the courtroom would force the defence counsel to repeatedly move back and forth, hampering the smooth conduct of proceedings.
The court also referred to Rule 14 of the Delhi High Court Rules, which permits an accused to remain seated during trial except where required to stand for a specific purpose, such as identification.
"As a matter of abundant caution, for convenience and smooth conduct of the Court proceedings, accused Aaftab Amin Poonawala was permitted to sit adjacent, right behind his counsel," the judge said.
Observing that even a person accused of a heinous offence has legal rights, the judge said the Supreme Court had repeatedly held that an accused cannot be denied proper seating in the courtroom or subjected to treatment that "may reek of disgust, vengeance".
"Above all the hallmarks of criminal jurisprudence of our country is the presumption of innocence, and an accused also has a right to fair trial," the court said.
It also said that the constitutional right to legal representation includes the accused being able to sit close enough to communicate effectively with counsel during the proceedings.
Holding the complainant's request to be "unwarranted and unreasonable", the court dismissed the application.
