Chinnaponnu vs State Of Tamil Nadu

Chinnaponnu .....Appellant

Versus

State of Tamil Nadu ....Respondent

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge

of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, dismissing the appeal filed by

the appellant. Appellant was held guilty of offence punishable under

Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') and

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years by learned

Principal Judge, Dindigul.

3. The factual position need not be gone into in detail in view of order

proposed to be passed.

4. The accused faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable

under Section 302 IPC. It was the prosecution version that in the course of

sudden quarrel, the accused attacked Lakshmi (hereinafter referred to as the

'deceased') who was stated to be the second wife of one Samuvel. On

10.12.1994 the occurrence occurred. The accused faced trial and as noted

above was convicted by the trial court. The appeal before the High Court

was admitted considering the various grounds of challenge raised by the

appellant. It appears from the impugned order of the High Court that the

appellant's counsel did not appear when the matter was taken up and after

hearing learned Additional Prosecutor, the appeal was disposed of.

5. It was pointed out learned counsel for the appellant that because of

various difficulties the appellant's counsel could not appear and more

particularly neither the appellant nor his counsel had any knowledge that the

matter was to be taken up before the Madurai Bench of the High Court.

2

6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand submitted

that the appellant and her counsel ought to have been more vigilant.

7. While issuing notice on 23.7.2007, it was indicated that the matter

may be remitted for fresh hearing because the appellant was not represented

when the matter was taken up by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High

Court.

8. Considering the difficulties highlighted by the appellant to explain

non-appearance of the counsel we are satisfied that this is a fit case where

the High Court should re-hear the matter.

9. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. We set

aside the impugned judgment and remit the matter to the High Court for

fresh hearing.

10. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

..........................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

3 ..........................................J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY) New Delhi, February 11, 2009

4