While adding to the guidelines prescribed in the case of Anokhi Lal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2019) 20 SCC 196], the Supreme Court has laid down a new procedural norm to be followed in cases, where convicts released on bail after suspension of sentence, neglect to cooperate with the court to impede a decision on their appeal. The Court stated that whenever an appellate court appoints an amicus curiae to represent a convict whose counsel is absent, it should also consider issuing a notice to the convict. This notice should be sent to the address mentioned in the appeal memorandum and served through the jurisdictional police station. The notice must intimate the convict about the appointment of the amicus and that they may provide necessary instructions to the amicus.
The Court further clarified that if the service report indicates the convict was not found or refused notice, pasting the notice on the outer wall of the premises would be sufficient compliance. If the convict remains dormant, the High Court may proceed to decide the appeal with the assistance of the amicus. This process would serve to eliminate any future pleas of unfairness and would also help ascertain if the appeal survives for a decision or has abated, thereby saving judicial time.
A Two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma acknowledged the appellant’s argument that he suffered prejudice because the amicus urged a ground for conviction under a lesser charge, which was not part of the original appeal memorandum, thereby preventing the High Court from considering the grounds for a complete acquittal.
The Bench opined that while the High Court was not obligated to inform the appellant of his counsel’s absence, it would have been a ‘desirable precaution’, especially since the appeal was heard 21 years after he was released on bail. The Bench stressed that legal aid must be ‘real and meaningful’ and not a mere ‘token gesture’, and justice would have been better served if the appellant had been notified.
On the appellant’s conduct and failure to track the appeal, the Bench was not prepared to accept the appellant’s plea to argue the grounds for acquittal for the first time before it. It observed that the appellant, who was ‘enjoying the concession of bail for two decades’, had himself to blame for ‘not keeping track of his appeal’. The Bench noted that the High Court’s attempt to expedite the two-decade-old appeal was not unjustified, and it did not find fault with the approach of the learned amicus who succeeded in getting the conviction reduced.
Briefly, the appellant was convicted by a sessions court on 25th November 2002 for a murder committed on 28th October 2000 and was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 of the IPC. He had been in pre-trial custody since 29th October 2000. Later, the appellant filed an appeal in the High Court of Jharkhand in early 2003 and was subsequently released on bail on 10th March 2003, following an order for suspension of sentence.
The appeal remained pending and was not listed for hearing for over 20 years. When the appeal was finally listed on 14th November 2024, no one appeared for the appellant despite repeated calls. Consequently, the High Court appointed an advocate with over 15 years of standing as an amicus curiae to assist the court. On 2nd December 2024, the High Court, after hearing the amicus curiae, partly allowed the appeal. It altered the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 – Part II of the IPC and sentenced the appellant to 5 years of rigorous imprisonment.
As the appellant was taken back into custody on 30th December 2024, he challenged this order before the Supreme Court, contending that he was not made aware of his counsel’s absence or the subsequent appointment of an amicus curiae. A report from the Registrar General of the High Court confirmed that no notice was issued to the appellant regarding these developments.
Case Relied On:
Anokhi Lal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh – (2019) 20 SCC 196
Appearances:
AOR Harsh Kaushik and Advocate Arpit Srivastava, for the Appellant
AOR Pallavi Langar, along with Advocates Kumar Anurag Singh, Sujeet Kumar Chaubey, Zain A Khan, Dev Aaryan, and Mohd. Abran Khan, for the Respondent
