1999 (10) TMI 165 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether there was miscarriage of justice on the fact situation in this case as the learned Single Judge of the High Court proceeded to decide the appeal unaided by the arguments of an advocate at- least by appointing as Amicus Curiae to assist the court? Held that - The present case seems to be a glaring example of failure of justice due to the absence of such legal assistance. Learned Single Judge of the High Court chose to confirm the conviction and the severe sentence passed on the 12 appellants after scrutinizing the evidence on its own, for which the following reasoning has been advanced by the learned Single Judge On scrutiny of the evidence, it appears that the prosecution witnesses have proved the manner of occurrence whereas P.Ws.6, 8 and 14 have identified the dacoits by face. It appears that P.Ws.6, 8 and 14 had also stated before the Investigating Officer about the commission of the dacoity and they had also disclosed the names of the dacoits. After scrutiny of evidence, it appears to me that the prosecution has proved the charges against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. Apparently a serious error has been committed by the learned Single Judge which looms large in the aforesaid passage. He took into account a set of legally forbidden materials in reaching the conclusion. Appeal allowed and remit the case to the High Court for disposal of the appeal afresh in accordance with law

Summary

Issues:
Conviction under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, failure of legal representation in High Court appeal, miscarriage of justice due to absence of legal assistance, error in judgment by Single Judge, use of forbidden materials in reaching a conclusion, need for fresh disposal of the appeal.

Conviction under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code:
Twelve individuals were convicted by a Sessions Court under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. They jointly filed an appeal before the High Court of Patna in 1986. However, during the appeal hearing in 1998, the appellants' Counsel did not appear, leading to the dismissal of the appeal by a Single Judge. The appellants challenged this decision in the Supreme Court, alleging a miscarriage of justice due to lack of legal representation.

Failure of Legal Representation in High Court Appeal:
The Supreme Court noted that when the Counsel engaged by the appellants did not appear for the appeal hearing, there was no obligation for the Court of Appeal to wait for him or adjourn the case. Previous legal views on dismissing appeals for default were clarified by a three Judge Bench, emphasizing the need for disposal on merits after examining the evidence. The Court highlighted that the absence of Counsel does not prevent the Court from appointing another Counsel at the state's expense to assist.

Miscarriage of Justice due to Absence of Legal Assistance:
The Supreme Court analyzed the case and found a miscarriage of justice due to the Single Judge deciding the appeal without the arguments of an advocate or appointing an Amicus Curiae. The Court emphasized that in cases with substantial sentences, seeking legal assistance is advisable. The absence of legal aid in this case led to a failure of justice, warranting a fresh disposal of the appeal.

Error in Judgment by Single Judge:
The Single Judge's decision to confirm the conviction and severe sentences based on legally forbidden materials and flawed reasoning was criticized by the Supreme Court. The Judge's reliance on statements made to the Investigating Officer, without examination, was deemed erroneous. The Court highlighted the inadmissibility of such evidence and the need for proper legal representation to avoid such errors.

Need for Fresh Disposal of the Appeal:
In light of the errors in the judgment and the absence of legal assistance, the Supreme Court set aside the decision and remitted the case to the High Court for a fresh disposal of the appeal according to law. The Court recommended appointing an advocate at state cost if the accused's Counsel fails to appear. The appellants were granted the option to apply for bail pending the appeal's disposal.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of conviction, legal representation, miscarriage of justice, errors in judgment, and the need for a fresh disposal of the appeal to ensure a fair and just outcome.