Delve into the recent court decision that scrutinized the dismissal of an appeal for non-prosecution, focusing on the Division Bench’s detailed legal analysis. The court emphasized the necessity of hearing appeals on their merits, even in cases where the appellant is absconding. This summary sheds light on the significant considerations and established legal norms that were taken into account by the court, providing insight into the complexities of the criminal justice system.
Facts
- Appellant convicted under Sections 302 and 120B of the IPC, and Section 27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959.
- Non-bailable warrant issued against the appellant for absconding.
- Director General of Police announced a reward to informant for the appellant’s whereabouts.
- Issue: Can an appeal against conviction be dismissed if the accused is absconding?
- An appeal was preferred by the appellant before the High Court of Patna against the judgment and order of conviction.
- The High Court of Patna dismissed the appeal without considering the merits due to the appellant being absconding.
- The Division Bench held that the appellant forfeited his right to appeal by escaping custody and abusing the legal process.
- The Division Bench admitted the appeal for hearing on 29 October 2009 despite the appellant’s actions.
- The deliberate act of the appellant was seen as defiance of criminal justice administration.
Also Read: Admission Deadline Adherence in Medical Courses
Analysis
- The Division Bench found it difficult to agree with the suggestion in the Ram Naresh Yadav case that an appeal should be dismissed for non-prosecution if the appellant or his pleader is not present.
- The appellate court is expected to give a hearing to the appellant or his counsel, and to the public prosecutor, before disposing of the appeal on merits.
- The Division Bench held that once an appeal is admitted to be heard on merits, it cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the absence of the appellant or his counsel, but must be disposed of after examining the record.
- The Division Bench mentioned the settled law in the case of Bani Singh where it was held that the appellate court can dispose of the appeal on merits even if the appellant or his counsel is absent.
- The Court emphasized that the appeal should not be dismissed for non-prosecution, but should be disposed of on merits after perusing the record and ensuring that the trial court’s reasoning and findings are consistent with the evidence on record.
- The Division Bench in Ram Naresh Yadav case did not apply the provisions of Sections 385-386 of the Code correctly, as they indicated an obligation to adjourn the case if the appellant or his lawyer remained absent.
- There was a conflict in views between the decisions in Shyam Deo and Ram Naresh Yadav cases regarding the dismissal of appeals for non-prosecution.
- The Court clarified that the law does not mandate adjourning a case if both the appellant and their lawyer are absent.
- Section 385 of the law requires notice to be given only to the appellant or their pleader for the appeal hearing.
- The Division Bench deviated from established legal norms, prompting the decision to set aside the judgment and remand the appeal for a fresh review.
- It was advised that if the accused is unable to appear in court due to being in jail, the case should be adjourned and a new date fixed to allow the accused or appellant to be present.
- In case the lawyer is absent, the court can appoint a lawyer at State expense for assistance.
- Reference to a past case – Daya Shankar Singh – based on the Patna High Court Rules was made, but the present case was admitted before the mentioned rule.
- The rule that applies to the pre-admission stage was not applicable in this case.
- An application for bail in this appeal was heard and rejected on 14 May 2018 after the appellant was taken into custody.
- The Division Bench expressed anguish over the appellant’s action of absconding and avoiding justice.
- Dismissing an appeal against conviction for non-prosecution without considering merits is not justified.
Also Read: From Nominee to Disqualified: Supreme Court Scrutinizes Age Evidence, Declares Election Invalid
Decision
- Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.936 of 2009 is remanded to the High Court of Judicature at Patna for hearing in accordance with the law.
- The impugned judgment and order dated 25 August 2015 is hereby set aside.
- Requesting the High Court to ensure expeditious disposal of the appeal, preferably within six months from today.
- If the appeal is not heard within six months, the appellant can apply for suspension of the sentence.
- Appeal is partly allowed with the conditions mentioned.
- Due to the appeal being from 2009, it must be heard expeditiously, setting aside the impugned judgment and remanding the appeal to the High Court.
- Given the year of the appeal and the grave nature of the conviction under Section 302 of IPC, priority should be given to the appeal’s disposal.
Case Title: DHANANJAY RAI @ GUDDU RAI Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR (2022 INSC 723)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000803-000803 / 2017
