‘If Convict’s Lawyer Was Absent, HC ought to have Appointed A Lawyer For Him,’ Says Supreme Court in Criticising HC Decision on Criminal Appeal lacking Hearing
Last Updated on October 13, 2023 by News Desk
Issue – The Supreme Court recently reversed a contentious conviction by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a triple murder case that had generated concerns about procedural flaws and a violation of fundamental standards. The case, stretching from 1987 to 2011, had seen a changed charge, the absence of the appellant’s lawyer throughout the hearing, and a lack of notification of the changing of charges, resulting in considerable prejudice to the appellant.
Facts of the case – The circumstances of the case centre on being convicted in the MP HC under sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code for the offense of triple murder, leading to a life imprisonment term for the appellant.
The ruling was given by a Supreme Court bench composed of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mitthal. They highlighted that the MP HC had committed an illegality by considering the appeal without hearing the appellant or his attorney while the latter was absent. The Court highlighted the essential necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice and allowing accused persons a fair chance to defend themselves when accusations are revised during an appeal.
Arguments – The charge under Section 302, originally read with Sections 148 and/or 149 of IPC, had been amended to a charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC by the High Court without giving notice to the appellant. This alteration, the Supreme Court decided, had caused considerable prejudice to the appellant, since he had not been given the chance to argue against the presence of common purpose, a critical aspect of Section 34 of IPC.
The verdict also emphasised the lack of a documented finding in the High Court’s judgement about the modification of charges, which was a breach of the law.
Reasoning – While remanding the case to the High Court for a new hearing could have been the normal approach, the Supreme Court took into consideration the extended duration of the case and the many years that had gone since the event happened. Recognizing the unfairness of such a delay, the Court opted to review the material on record methodically.
Judgement – After a comprehensive assessment, the Supreme Court struck aside the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. However, it preserved the conviction under Section 201 of IPC. The appeal was accepted, ensuring that justice was done while taking into consideration the particular circumstances of this extended case.
Case title – Chandra Pratap Singh v. State of MP
Written by – Nikita Shankar
