Lethargy Is Not an Exceptional Circumstance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Striking Off of Defence for Delay in Filing Written Statement Vague Decree of Injunction Can’t Be Executed by Attaching Machines: Rajasthan High Court Strikes Down Execution Order Mere permission to join proceedings without allowing filing of written statement is illusory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Proceedings Unregistered Power of Attorney Can’t Transfer Property: MP High Court Denies Title, Dismisses Ejectment Suit Mere Non-Recovery of Weapon Is Not Fatal When Circumstantial and Medical Evidence Prove Guilt Beyond Doubt: Allahabad High Court Failure to Examine Gazetted Officer and Magistrate Who Certified Seizure Goes to Root of Fair Trial Under NDPS Act : Calcutta High Court Tender Years Doctrine Is No Longer Good Law: Delhi High Court Slams Mother’s Custody Claim Built on Parental Alienation Negation of Bail is the Rule in NDPS Cases Involving Commercial Quantity: Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Single Stab Injury in Heat of Passion During Sudden Quarrel Is Not Murder: Kerala High Court Section 10 CPC Inapplicable To Labour Court Proceedings; Stay Of Individual Disputes Denied: Karnataka High Court 138 NI Act | Once Issuance and Signature on Cheque Are Admitted, Burden Shifts on Accused to Dislodge Statutory Presumption: Madras High Court Confession Cannot Substitute Proof: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Convicted of Wife’s Murder "Sole Eyewitness Testimony, Corroborated by Medical and Recovery Evidence, Is Enough to Sustain Conviction Under Section 302 IPC: Allahabad High Court Partition Once Effected Cannot Be Reopened on Vague Allegations of Fraud: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Registered Family Partition Deed Cancellation of Land Acquisition Compensation Without Allegation or Hearing Is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Restores Compensation to Innocent Land Owner Whether Act Was in Discharge of Official Duty Is a Question of Fact — Magistrate, Not High Court, Must Decide: Supreme Court Restricts Writ Interference in BNSS Cases Section 175(4) BNSS | Affidavit Is Not Optional — Even Complaints Against Public Servants Must Follow Procedural Rigour: Supreme Court Magistrate Cannot Be Directed to Recall His Judicial Order by a Writ Court: Supreme Court Warns Against Article 226 Interference in Pending Criminal Proceedings Even In Absence of Written Demand, If Substantial Dispute Exists or Is Apprehended, Reference Under Section 10 ID Act Is Valid: Supreme Court Absence of Classical Signs of Strangulation and Possibility of Hanging Nullifies Homicidal Theory: Supreme Court Holds Medical Evidence Alone Cannot Prove Guilt Confession Must Be Direct Acknowledgment of Guilt, Not Mere Presence at Scene: Supreme Court Slams Misuse of Section 164 CrPC Reversal of Acquittal Without Dislodging Trial Court’s Reasoning Is Impermissible: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal

“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