Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Ram Awadh Singh vs State Of U.P. on 9 February, 2015
Bench: V. Gopala Gowda, R. Banumathi
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1970 OF 2013
RAM AWADH SINGH ... APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF UP ...RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
The correctness of the judgment and order of conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the Code') is challenged before us on various grounds inter alia mainly on the ground that the appeal is disposed of by the High Court without hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and, therefore, the impugned judgment and order is vitiated on account of miscarriage of justice Signature Not Verified as reasonable opportunity of hearing was not given to Digitally signed by Vinod Kumar Date: 2015.02.14 10:52:15 IST Reason: the appellant.
2After hearing learned counsel for the parties, carefully perusing the material available on record and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the sufficient opportunity was given to the learned counsel for the appellant and despite granting a number of opportunity, the learned counsel for the appellant has not chosen to appear for the reason that he has no instructions in the matter. Even on the date of disposal of the appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court observed as under:
“......The Amicus Curiae appointed in some of the cases also do not appear. This situation is alarming and upsetting both and ultimately results in the erosion of public faith in the efficacy of eroding of judicial administration. Off and on we have come across the cases in which many a times most of the accused have already expired by the time their appeals come up for hearing or those accused who are on bail, are absconding for years together. In such a situation, the Court can not remain silent spectator and can indefinitely not allow the non-cooperation of the accused appellants or his legal representative to hold the entire judicial administration at ransom.” In view of the aforesaid observation made by the High Court, the nature of the charge levelled against the appellant and the facts and circumstances of the 3 case, in our considered view, in case of advocate appearing for the appellant not assisting the Court, the Court should have appointed an amicus curiae for the appellant and merely some amicus curiae appointed by the court in some cases not assisting the court shall not be the reason for not appointing an amicus curiae for the appellant. Therefore, the appellant should have been given the opportunity to represent his case and appropriate order should have been passed accordingly after hearing the submissions that would have been made by the learned counsel for the appellant. This has not been done in the instant case.
It is the undisputed fact that the appeal of the appellant was dismissed by the High Court for the aforesaid reason. Therefore, in our opinion, the matter requires reconsideration by the High Court, which we order accordingly. The High Court is requested to provide to the appellant either an amicus curiae, or to appoint an advocate or refer the matter to the Legal Services Committee, if the appellant is not in a position to afford an advocate and, thereafter, decide the case of the appellant on merits and decide the same after hearing the learned counsel, who will be appointed as mentioned above, as expeditiously as possible but not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4 The appeal is allowed with the aforesaid direction and observation.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
................J. (V. GOPALA GOWDA) ..................J. (R. BANUMATHI) NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 09, 2015 5 ITEM NO.7 COURT NO.10 SECTION II S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CRLMP. 794/2015 in Criminal Appeal No(s). 1970/2013 RAM AWADH SINGH Appellant(s) VERSUS STATE OF U.P. Respondent(s) (for bail and office report) Date : 09/02/2015 This application was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. GOPALA GOWDA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI For Appellant(s) Mr. Harendra Singh Rana, Adv.
Mr. Dhananjaya Kr. Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Prashant Chaudhary,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Gaurav Bhatia, AAG Mr. Ameet Singh, Adv.
Ms. Alka Sinha, Adv.
Mr. Anuvrat Sharma,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(VINOD KR.JHA) (MALA KUMARI SHARMA)
COURT MASTER COURT MASTER