District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala High Court

Supreme Court Criticized High Court for Convicting Appellant Without Hearing Advocate

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India has come down heavily on the High Court for convicting an appellant without allowing the appellant's advocate to present their case. The judgment, delivered on October 9, 2023, by a bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Pankaj Mithal, highlights a glaring violation of principles of natural justice.

The appellant, Chandra Pratap Singh, had appealed against his conviction under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, during the proceedings in the High Court, the appellant's advocate was conspicuously absent. This oversight, as noted by the Supreme Court, amounted to a gross illegality. The court stated, "High Court has committed illegality by deciding the appeal against the conviction preferred by the appellant without hearing the appellant or his advocate."

The High Court had also altered the charge against the appellant, convicting him under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, without providing the necessary notice to the appellant or their advocate. This alteration was found to have caused prejudice to the appellant, further emphasizing the violation of natural justice.

The judgment also underscored the requirement of notice to accused persons when altering or adding charges in appellate proceedings. The Supreme Court stated, "Unless the accused was put to notice by the Appellate Court that the charge is intended to be altered in a particular manner, his advocate cannot effectively argue the case."

While the appellant's conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC was set aside due to the absence of evidence supporting common intention among the accused, the conviction for causing the disappearance of evidence (Section 201 IPC) was upheld based on consistent eyewitness testimony.

This significant judgment serves as a reminder of the paramount importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and ensuring that accused individuals have the opportunity to be heard and represented adequately in court proceedings.

Date of Decision: October 9, 2023

Chandra Pratap Singh  vs State of M.P.               

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/09-Oct-2023-CHANDRA-PRATAP-SINGH-Vs-State.pdf"]

Latest Legal News