Latest News
Back
If an accused is unpresented then court has to appoint Amicus Curiae or request the Legal service committee to appoint an advocate: SC
The hon’ble SC has given a judgement stating that if an accused is unpresented before any court of law, it has either to appoint an Amicus Curiae or refer such matter to the Legal Service Committee demanding them to appoint an advocate for the same. In re SHAIK MUKTHAR vs. State of AP, the High Court of Telangana had given its verdict of conviction of the accused even though being unpresented before the court during the appeal. And then the said matter was challenged in the apex court by the way of an appeal questioning the verdict passed by the HC of Telangana. The said accused was charged u/s 498A of Indian Penal Code even though being unpresented before the respected court.
The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justice Mohan M. Shanthanagoudar and Justice R. Subhash Reddy disapproved the approach of the preceding court and held that “It is by now well settled by a catena of judgments such as the decision of this Court in Rakesh & Anr V. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2011(12) SCC 512, that it is in the interest of justice to appoint an amicus curiae to assist the court where the accused is unrepresented. The Court may also refer the matter to the Legal Services Committee, which may appoint an advocate to represent the accused. The High Court, unfortunately, has not chosen to either appoint an Amicus Curiae or to refer the matter to the Legal Services Committee requesting it to appoint an advocate.” The bench believed that since the appellant advocate remained absent on the date of hearing it is unfortunate of penalising the appellants for the same. Right of fair hearing was denied to the appellants as they weren’t heard before the verdict of the court of law. The initial sentencing of the HC was the appellants had to go 2 years of imprisonment but the trail court had given an order of 3 years. Allowing the appeal in part the hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the final order, the bench held, “Therefore, the appeal was allowed in part. The conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable u/s 498A of the IPC is maintained, but the sentence period is reduced to already undergone. The appellants shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case”
