LexMADHUBAN versus STATE OF U.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 7 S.C.R. 727 - .. ' MADHUBAN A v. STATE OF U.P. (Criminal Appeal No.799 of 2008)· __,, MAY 5, 2008 B J (C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.) Penal Code, 1860; Ss.302, 323, 394 rlw s.34 /PC: Murder - Trial Court found accused guilty of committing c murder of father and son and convicted him u/ss 302, 323, 394 rlw s.34 /PC and sentenced them accordingly-Affirmed by High Court allegedly without hearing counsel of appellant - Correctness of - Held: Counsel for appellant sought for extension of time before the High Court for the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the affidavit - Advocate for the D appellant could not make oral submission before the High Court because of infection in vocal cord - Under the circumstances, it would be appropriate if the High Court hears the counsel for the appellant and passes an order in accordance with law - Practice & Procedure. E According to the prosecution,· in the night of November 15, 1976, the brother and nephew of the informant were attacked by four persons. When he came to their rescue, he was also assaulted. On his raising F alarm, the accused fled away. The brother of the informant -_.) died on the spot. The informant has taken his nephew, in critical condition to a hospital and later, First Information Report was lodged in the police station. Nephew of the informant succumbed to injuries in the Hospital. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet against G accused for committing the offences punishable u/ss.302, 1~ 323 and 394 r/w s.34 IPC. Trial Court found accused guilty of committing the offences punishable u/ss 302, 323, 394 and sentenced them accordingly. The appeal preferred 727 H 728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 7 S.C.R. A thereagainst by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeal. Appellant contended that on November 21, 2006, when the appeal was heard by the Division Bench of the B High Court, the counsel for the appellant was unable to argue the case due to swelling in his vocal cord and the said fact had been brought to the notice of the Court while \ filing an application for extension of time for filing written statement; and that an affidavit in support of such assertion was also filed in the High Court. c Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 This Court went through the records and proceedings before the High Court and satisfied that the statement made by the counsel for the appellant is found D to be correct. In the application for extension of time dated 24th/25th November, 2006, it was stated that for the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, time for filing written statements might be extended. [Para 11] [732-8, C] E 1.2 It appears that the advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant before the High Court could not make oral submissions because of infection in vocal cord. [Para 12] [732-E-F] F 2.1 In view of the above facts and circumstances, ends of justice would be met by setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter to the High ' - Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. [Para 13] [732-F, G] G 2.2 It would be appropriate if the High Court hears the counsel for the appellant-accused and passes an appropriate order in accordance with law. Only on that ground, the appeal is allowed. [Para 14] [733-A, B] ,, 2.3 It is clarified that this Court has not entered into I H the merits of the matter and as and when the matter is MADHUBAN v. STATE OF U.P. 729 ... [C.K. THAKKER, J.] placed for hearing before the High Court, the Court will A decide the same on its own merits. [Para 15) [733-8, C) CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 799 of 2008. From the final Judgment and Order dated 30.4.2007 of B the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 13of1982. Z.K. Faizan, Ruby Khan and Goodwill lndeevar for the Appellant. c Pramod Swarup, Savitri Pandey and Anil Kumar Jha, for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court 1Nas delivered by C.K. THAKKER, J. 1. Leave granted. D • 2. The present appeal is filed against judgment and order ~ passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on April 30, 2007 in Criminal Appeal NO. 13 of 1982 by which it confirmed the order of conviction and sentence recorded on December 22, 1981 by the 1st Additional District & Sessions E Judge, Faizabad in Sessions
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.