Bhagmal & Anr vs State Of M.P
- CitationAIRONLINE 2008 SC 312
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
An appellate court cannot affirm a conviction on appeal without providing the accused an opportunity to present their case, whether through their own counsel or through appointed representation; failure to do so, and deciding the appeal ex parte on the merits, constitutes a violation of natural justice and procedural fairness that requires the conviction to be set aside and the matter to be remitted for fresh hearing.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1675 OF 2008 [Arising out of SLP(Crl) No.5493 of 2007]
BHAGMAL & ANR. .......APPELLANT(S)
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH .....RESPONDENT(S)
ORDER
Leave granted. Heard counsel on both sides.
2. Eleven accused including the appellants herein (who were accused No.6 and
11) were prosecuted for offences under Section 302/149, 324/149 and 323 IPC. The trial
Court convicted and sentenced them to life imprisonment. All the accused filed an
appeal before the High Court. When the appeal was listed for hearing on 6.6.2006, none
appeared for the appellants-accused. The High Court heard the learned Deputy
Advocate General appearing for the State and disposed of the appeal by confirming the
conviction and sentence of the appellants (accused No.6 and 11) under Section 302 IPC,
and conviction of accused No.3 under Section 323 IPC. It acquitted the other accused.
Feeling aggrieved, accused No. 6 and 11 have filed this appeal by special leave.
3. None appeared for any of the accused at the time of hearing before the
High Court. In the circumstances, the
......2.
-2-
appellants' conviction has been affirmed without an opportunity to put forth their case
in the appeal. The High Court ought to have given an opportunity or made
arrangement for their representation.
4. In view of the above, the judgment of the High Court is set aside insofar as
appellants (accused No.6 and 11) are concerned and the matter is remitted to the High
Court for fresh disposal after giving due opportunity of hearing to accused No.6 and 11,
or after appointing an amicus curiae to put forth their case. Appeal is, accordingly,
disposed of.
...........................J. ( R.V. RAVEENDRAN )
New Delhi; ...........................J. October 20, 2008. ( J.M. PANCHAL )
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free