LexSHRIDHAR NAMDEO LAWAND versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2013] 7 S.C.R. 1057
SHRIDHAR NAMDEO LAWAND
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
(Criminal Appeal No. 1124 of 2013)
AUGUST 5, 2013
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, AND RANJANA PRAKASH
DESAI AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.]
Appeal:
A
B
c
Criminal appeal - Decided by High Court in absence of
counsel for accused - Held: Court should not decide criminal
case in the absence of counsel for the accused - Accused
should not suffer for the fault of his counsel and court must
appoint another counsel as an amicus curiae to defend the 0
accused - It is the duty of appellate court to look into the
evidence adduced in the case so as to arrive at the conclusion
whether prosecution case can be said to have been proved
beyond reasonable doubt - Credibility of a witness has to be
adjudged by appellate court in drawing inference from proved E
and admitted facts - In the case on hand, the said recourse
has not been followed by High Court- Impugned order is set
aside· and matter remitted to High Court for disposal afresh -
- Appellant is in custody for nearly two months as against the
sentence of two years - Therefore, he is ordered to be released
on bail till the disposal of appeal pending before High Court F
- Bail.
Bani Singh & Ors. vs. State of U.P. 1996 (3) Suppl. SCR
247 = (1996) 4 SCC 720 (Larger Bench); Harjinder Singh
vs. State of Punjab 2010 (10) SCR326 = (2010) 13 SCC 533; . G
Iqbal Abdul Samiya Malek vs. State of Gujarat, (2012) 11
SCC 312; KS. Panduranga vs. State of Kamataka, (2013) 3
sec 721 - referred to.
1057
H
A
B
c
1058
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2013] 7 S.C.R.
Case Law Reference:
1996 (3) Suppl. SCR 247 referred to
para 8
2010 (10) SCR 326
referred to
para 8
(2012) 11 sec 312
referred to
para 8
2013 (3) sec 121
referred to
para 8
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1124 of 2013.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.11.2012 of the
High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 220
of 1997.
Rakesh Kumar, Naveer Gaur, Debnandan R., for the
o Appellant.
E
F
G
H
Chinmoy Khaladkar, Sanjay Kharde, Asha Gopalan Nair
for the Respondent.
The following order of the Court was delivered
ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Leave granted.
3. Against the conviction and sentence under Section· 7
and 13(2) read with Section 13(1 )(d) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, the appellant has approached the High
Court by way of Criminal Appeal No. 220 of 1997.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has pointed
out the following two infirmities in the impugned order.
(i) The appellant was not heard and the appeal was ·
disposed of only on the basis of the statement made by
the Counsel-State.
SHRIDHAR NAMDEO LAWAND v. STATE 0F
1059
MAHARASHTRA
(ii) The High Court has not gone into all the details and has
A
not appreciated the evidence placed by both sides.
5. In the light of the said contention, we have carefully
perused the impugned order. Even at the first sight, we noticed
none appeared for the appellant-accused before the High
8
Court. This is evident from para 2 of the impugned order.
Though, the High Court has mentioned certain factual details,
the fact remains that it has not analyzed the evidence led by
the prosecution and defence pleaded by the appellant-accused.
6.lt is settled law that court should not decide criminal case
C
in the absence of the counsel for the accused as an accused
in a criminal case should not suffer for the fault of his. counsel
and the court should, in such a situation must appoint another
counsel as an amicus curiae to defend the accused.
7. It is also equally settled that it is the duty of the appellate
court to look into the evidence adduced in the case to arrive at
an independent conclusion as to whether the said evidence can
D
be relied upon or not and even if it can be relied upon then
whether prosecution can be said to have been proved beyond
E
reasonable doubt on the said evidence. To put it clear, the
credibility of a witness has to be adjudged by the appellate court
in drawing inference from proved and admitted facts. In the
case on hand, the said recourse has not been followed by the
High Court.
8. All the above principles have been reiterated in:
i) Bani Singh & Ors. vs. State of UP., (1996) 4 SCC 720
(Larger Bench)
F
ii) Harjinder Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2010) 13 SCC
G
533
iii) Iqbal Abdul Samiya Malek vs. State of Gujarat, {2012)
11 sec· 312
H
1060
SUPREExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.