IMTIYAZ RAMZAN KHAN versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2018] 10 S.C.R. 953 · Decided: 14-08-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
953
IMTIYAZ RAMZAN KHAN
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(SLP (Crl.) No. 6740 of  2018)
AUGUST 14, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]
Video conferencing: Arrangement of conducting video
conferencing between the counsel and the accused made mandatory
by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee – Such a direction
on part of Supreme Court Legal Services Committee is commendable
and praiseworthy – It is essential for the counsels/Advocates
appearing in matters entrusted by the Legal Services Committee to
have the advantage of having a dialogue with either the accused
or those having knowledge of details about the case – Attempt to
facilitate dialogue between counsel and his client furthers the cause
of justice and makes legal aid meaningful – Therefore, all Legal
Services Authorities/Committees in every State to extend such facility
in every criminal case wherever the accused is lodged in jail –
Administration of criminal justice.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave
Petition (Crl.) No. 6740 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.08.2013 of the High Court
of Judicature  at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 986 of 2005
  WITH
SLP(Crl.) No. 6747 of 2018.
Shikhil Suri & Shiv Kumar Suri, Advs. for the Petitioners.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. 1. Though these two special leave
petitions are completely unconnected but they present one common
feature and as such we propose to deal with these two special leave
petitions by this common Judgment.
2.
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 6740 (D.No.20446 of 2018)
of 2018  challenges the decision dated 30.08.2013 of the High Court of
953
[2018] 10 S.C.R. 953
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
954
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 10 S.C.R.
Judicature at Bombay dismissing Criminal Appeal No.986 of 2005
preferred by the petitioner and thereby affirming his conviction for the
offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentence of imprisonment
for life.  The prosecution principally relied on the testimony of two eye
witnesses, namely, PWs 3 and 5 whose evidence was found by the High
Court to be worthy of reliance and completely unblemished.  The decision
rendered by the High Court, in our view, does not call for interference
and as such we dismiss this special leave petition.
3.
In Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 6747 (Diary No.21026 of
2018) of 2018  the decision dated 17.02.2014 passed by the High Court
of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No.850 of 2009 is under
challenge. The High Court by its judgment and order affirmed the
conviction of the petitioner under Section 302 IPC and his sentence of
imprisonment for life.  Though the defence of sudden fight was taken on
behalf of the petitioner, the High Court on detailed analysis rejected said
theory and found the petitioner guilty of the offence in question.  Having
gone through the matter, we see no reason to take a different view and
as such we dismiss this special leave petition.
4.
We now come to the common feature between these two
matters.  Mr. Shikhil Suri, learned Advocate appeared for the accused in
both the matters.  On pervious dates letters were circulated by the learned
Advocate appearing for the petitioners that the matters be adjourned so
as to enable the counsel to make arrangements for conducting video
conferencing with the concerned accused.  The letter further stated that
this exercise was made mandatory as per the directions of the Supreme
Court Legal Services Committee. This Court readily agreed and
adjourned the matters.  On the adjourned date, we enquired from Mr.
Shikhil Suri, learned Advocate whether he could successfully get in touch
with the concerned accused.  According to the learned Advocate he
could not get in touch with the accused in the first matter but could
speak with his sister whereas in the second matter he could have video
conference with the accused.
5.
In our view such a direction on part of the Supreme Court
Legal Services Committee is quite commendable and praiseworthy.  Very
often we see that the learned Advocates who appear in matters entrusted
by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, do not have the
advantage of having had a dialogue with either the accused or those
who are in the know of the details about the case.  This at times seriously
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
955
hampers the efforts on part of the learned Advocates.   All such attempts
to facilitate dialogue between the counsel and his client would further
the cause of justic

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.