Sold Property During Pending Appeal, Defied Court Order: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sends Man To Jail For Contempt Hostile Witness Cannot Erase a Bribe Demand Already Made on Record: Supreme Court Restores Conviction of Ration Officer Three Decades of Unpaid Wages: Supreme Court Strips Gannon Dunkerley of Control Over Sick Company's Assets, Appoints Administrator to Pay Workers by August 2026 Gram Nyayalaya Cannot Touch Family Court's Maintenance Orders — Allahabad High Court Draws the Line Caste Abuse Allegation at Village Jatra Is Counter-Blast to Earlier Machete Attack: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Despite SC/ST Act Bar Contributory Negligence | Not Wearing a Helmet Does Not Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Madras High Court Air Force Can't Punish Officer After Criminal Court Sets Him Free: Supreme Court Overturns 30-Year-Old Dismissal Written Statement Without Affidavit of Admission/Denial: Non-Est Filing or Curable Defect? Delhi High Court Refers Conflicting Views to Larger Bench Bank's Negligence Killed Cheque Bounce Case Before It Could Begin: Supreme Court Rules Section 138 Remedy Lost Due to Stale Cheques Bank Letting Your Cheques Go Stale Is Deficiency in Service: Supreme Court Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Benefit Of Probation Act Available Even If Offender Is Sentenced Solely To Fine: Supreme Court Reporting Registration Of FIR Based On Public Records Does Not Violate Right To Privacy: Sikkim High Court CBSE Cannot Cancel Class XII Results Based on Similar MCQ Answers Alone Without Any Report of Malpractice From Examination Centre: Orissa High Court

“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