RISHI NANDAN PANDIT AND ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 22 · Decided: 15-10-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.T. THOMAS · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
RISHI NANDAN PANDIT AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR 
OCTOBER 15, 1999 
,~
B 
[SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 : Sections 384, 385 and 386. 
• 
c 
Appeai-Dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution-Legality of-
Accused-Conviction for offence of decoity-Rigorous imprisonment for ten 
years-Appeal-Absence of counsel-Dismissal of appeal on merits-Held, 
in the absence of counsel for the accused, Court can come to its own 
conclusion-But as a matter of prudence Court can appoint Amicus Curiae 
counsel-Jn this case prejudice was caused to the accused in the absence of 
D counsel-Appellant's appeal restored-Matter remitted to High Court for 
fresh disposal. 
Sections 161-162 
Investigation-Statements made during--Permissible use of 
E 
The appellants were convicted under Sections 394, 395 of the Indian 
Penal Code, 1860. They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 10 years. 
On the day of hearing of the appeal before the High Court, their counsel did 
not turn up in the Court. Single Judge of the Patna High Court heard the 
F 
counsel for the State alone and dismissed the' appellant's appeal on merits. 
Consequently he confirmed the conviction and sentence passed on the 
appellants. Against the Judgment of the High Court appeal was preferred 
before this Court. 
Allowing the appeal and setting aside the' impugned judgment, the Court 
G 
HELD : I. As a matter of legal position court is not precluded from 
perusing the records and come to its own conclusion unaided by any legal 
practitioner to project the points favourable to the accused, when the counsel 
engaged by them does not turn up to argue .. But it is a matter of prudence 
that court may, in an appropriate case, appoint a counsel at the State's expense 
/.. 
H 
22 
,· 
• 
_ .. _; 
• 
R.N. PAND!Tv. STATEOFBIHAR 
23 
to argue for the cause of the accused. Of course it is for the court to A 
determine, on a consideration of the conspectus of the case, whether it does 
or does not require such legal assistance. There can be appeals which could 
be disposed of unassisted by counsel to put forth the favourable features for 
the accused. But if the sentence imposed by the judgment impugned in the 
appeal is of a substantial range it is advisable to seek the assistance of a legal B 
talent. [26-B, C, DJ 
Ram Naresh Yadav and Ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR (1987) SC 1500, 
impliedly overruled . 
Bani Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P., [1996) 4 SCC 720, relied on. 
C 
2. The present case seems to be a glaring example of failure of justice 
due to the absence of legal assistance. Altogether 11 witnesses were examined, 
during trial, to prove the occurrence. The trial court convicted appellants on 
the strength of the evidence of some of the eye-witnesses. A large volume of D 
evidence has been adduced. No doubt the stake involved in the appeal for the 
large number of convicted persons is obviously very high, particularly, in view 
of the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years impqsed on each of 
them. Hence any supercilious dealing of their case will be at the risk of serious 
miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the case is remitted to the High Court for 
disposal of the appeal afresh in accordance with law. (26-D, 25-H, 26-A) 
E 
3. It is trite that whatever a witness had stated to the investigating officer 
cannot be used as evidence. Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 
which incorporated' the aforesaid prohibition, permits such statements to be 
used only for the limited purpose of contradicting the witness in certain F 
circumstances. In this case serious error has been committed by the Single 
Judge of the High Court as he took into account a set of legally forbidden 
materials in reaching the conclusion. [26-G-H) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
1092of1999. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.8.98 of the Patna High Court in 
Crl. A. No. 235 of 1986. 
P.S. Mishra, Chandra Shekhar, Ms. Ritu Singh, Ms. Sumita Rani Singh 
and R.P. Singh for the Appellants. 
H 
24 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
B. B. Singh for the Respondent. 
~ 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
THOMAS, J. Leave granted. 
B 
Twelve persons stand convicted by a Sessions Court under Section 395 
of the Indian Penal Code and all of them were sentenced to undergo rigorous 
imprisonment for 10 years. All of them jointly filed an appeal before the High 
Court of Patna in August 1986. It appears th

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