'If Convict's Advocate Was Absent, HC Should've Appointed A Lawyer For Him' : Supreme Court Criticises HC Deciding Criminal Appeal Without Hearing

The Supreme Court recently examined a controversial conviction by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a triple murder case that was based on a modified charge, noting the absence of the appellant's advocate during the hearing. The Court highlighted procedural errors and the failure to provide notice regarding the proposed alteration of the charge, which resulted in a breach of legal principles and caused significant prejudice to the appellant.

The Court observed, “The order sheet of that date records that the advocate for the appellant was absent. It also notes that the arguments were heard, and judgment was reserved. The impugned judgment does not refer to any submission canvassed on behalf of the appellant. The High Court has, thus, committed illegality by deciding the appeal against the conviction preferred by the appellant without hearing the appellant or his advocate. After finding that the advocate appointed by the appellant was absent, the High Court ought to have appointed a lawyer to espouse his cause."

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Justice Pankaj Mitthal was hearing an appeal against the MP HC judgment which convicted the appellant in a case of triple murder under sections 302 and 201 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment.

The Court reiterated the paramount importance of adhering to natural justice and providing accused individuals with a fair opportunity to defend themselves when charges are altered or added during an appeal. In the present case, the charge under Section 302 read with Sections 148 and/or 149 of IPC was altered to a charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC by the High Court. The Court held that this lack of notice caused significant prejudice to the appellant, as he had no opportunity to argue against the existence of common intention, a necessary element of Section 34 of IPC.

It opined “In view of the wide powers conferred by Section 386 of Cr.PC, even an Appellate Court can exercise the power under Section 216 of altering or adding the charge. However, if the Appellate Court intends to do so, elementary principles of natural justice require the Appellate Court to put the accused to the notice of the charge proposed to be altered or added when prejudice is likely to be caused to the accused by alteration or addition of charges. Unless the accused was put to notice that the Appellate Court intends to alter or add a charge in a particular manner, his advocate cannot effectively argue the case.”

The judgment raised another crucial point, highlighting the absence of a recorded finding in the High Court's judgment concerning the alteration of charges. It noted that the High Court did not provide any reasons or findings as required by sub-section (4) of Section 216 of Cr.PC, which mandates a statement that the proposed alteration of the charge will not prejudice the accused in their defense.

While, in the ordinary course, the Supreme Court might have remanded the case to the High Court for a fresh hearing due to the lack of proper hearing and convictions based on a modified charge, the Court recognized the prolonged duration of the case, spanning from 1987 to 2011. As a result, the Court opted to examine the evidence on record and made its decision accordingly.

The Court observed “In the ordinary course, we would have remanded the appeal to the High Court for a fresh hearing on the ground that the appellant was not heard before confirming conviction on a modified charge. However, we cannot ignore that the incident is of 1987, and the present appeal is of 2011. Therefore, it will be unjust to pass an order of remand. Hence, we have examined the evidence on record.”

After detailed deliberation based on the evidence on record, the Supreme Court set aside the conviction under section 302 read with section 34 IPC. However, the appellant's conviction was retained under section 201 IPC.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Also from the judgment- Distinction Between 'Common Intention' & 'Common Object' : Supreme Court Explains While Setting Aside Conviction In Triple Murder Case

Case title: Chandra Pratap Singh v. State of MP

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 870

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment