(2009] 3 S.C.R. 197
.........
A
CHINNAPONNU
v.
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
(Criminal Appeal No. 271 of 2009)
FEBRUARY 11, 2009
B
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.]
~
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 304 (Part II) - Sudden quarrel
between parties - Accused attacked deceased resulting in her c
death - Conviction u/s. 304 (Part II) - Appeal by accused
against conviction admitted by High Court - However,
disposal of appeal on account of non-appearance of counsel
of accused when matter taken up before the Bench of High
Court - On appeal held: Counsel for the accused could not
,
appear on account of various difficulties - Hence, matter D
remitted to High Court for afresh hearing.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 271 of 2009.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.10.2006 of the
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court at Madurai, in Criminal
•
Appeal No. 856 of 1997 .
G. Sivabalamurgan, Y. Arunaigiri and L.K. Pandey for the
F
Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Leave granted.
G
~
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned
Single Judge of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench,
dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. Appellant was held
197
H
198
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2009] 3 S.C.R.
A guilty of offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the
,,>-
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years by learned
Principal Judge, Dindigul.
B
3. The factual position need not be gone into in detail in
view of order proposed to be passed.
4. The accused faced trial for alleged commission of
..
offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. It was the
c prosecution version that in the course of sudden quarrel, the
accused attacked Lakshmi (hereinafter referred to as the
'deceased') who was stated to be the second wife of one
Samuvel. On 10.12.1994 the occurrence occurred. The
accused faced trial and as noted above was convicted by the
D trial court. The appeal before the High Court was admitted
considering the various grounds of challenge raised by the
appellant. It appears from the impugned order of the High Court
that the appellant's counsel did not appear when the matter was
taken up and after hearing learned Additional Prosecutor, the
E appeal was disposed of.
5. It was pointed out learned counsel for the appellant that
because of various difficulties the appellant's counsel could not
appear and more particularly neither the appellant nor his
F
counsel had any knowledge that the matter was to be taken up
before the Madurai Bench of the High Court.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other
hand submitted that the appellant and her counsel ought to have
been more vigilant.
G
7. While issuing notice on 23.7.2007, it was indicated that
the matter may be remitted for fresh hearin~1 because the
appellant was not represented when the matter was taken up
by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.
H
CHINNAPONNU v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
199
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
8. Considering the difficulties highlighted by the appellant
to explain non-appearance of the counsel we are satisfied that
this is a fit case where the High Court should re-hear the matter.
9. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the
case. We set aside the impugned judgment and remit the
matter to the High Court for fresh hearing.
•
10. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent
N.J.
Appeal partly allowed.
>
Lex