Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case

“Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Judgment for ‘Violating the Principle of Fair Representation and Justice’”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


New Delhi, August 30, 2023 – In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has set aside a High Court judgment relating to a murder case, asserting that the appellant, Niranjan Das, was not given fair legal representation.

The bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mithal highlighted the procedural flaws in the High Court’s handling of the case. “It was a duty of the Court to give a reasonable time to the advocate appointed to go through the file and get ready to assist the Court,” observed Justice Oka.

Niranjan Das was convicted for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the Trial Court. His appeal was quickly dismissed by the High Court, which appointed an advocate for him on the same day as the hearing. The apex court criticized this hasty process, stating that it “violated the principle of fair representation and justice.”

Justice Oka pointed out that the advocate appointed for Das made arguments regarding ‘common intention’ to commit murder, even though the appellant was not convicted under Section 34 for common intention. “The very fact that such submission is made shows that the advocate was not ready with the matter,” noted Justice Oka.

Niranjan Das, who has been incarcerated for over eight years, has now been directed to be enlarged on bail. The case has been remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration.

The judgment concluded by emphasizing the importance of legal representation, and ensuring that the accused are given a fair chance in the judicial process. “We set aside the impugned judgment...and remand the said appeal to the High Court for fresh consideration,” the bench declared.

While the Supreme Court’s decision has been lauded for upholding the principles of justice and fair representation, it has also sparked discussions on the urgent need for reform in legal procedures to ensure that such lapses do not occur in the future.

This case will now proceed for a re-hearing in the High Court, with both parties given adequate time for preparation and representation.

Date of Decision:  August 29, 2023

NIRANJAN DAS @ NIRU DAS @ MAHANTO vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Latest Legal News