REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 578 OF 2002
Naresh Kumar .....Appellant
Versus
Kala Wati & Ors. .....Respondents
JUDGMENT
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge
of the Delhi High Court dismissing the Revision Petition filed by the
appellant.
2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
The appellant is the brother of one Smt. Rekha Rani Jain (hereinafter
referred to as the `deceased’) Respondents 1 & 2 faced trial for alleged
commission of offences punishable under Section 498A, 302 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC’). Learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Sessions Case No.80 of 1992 held that
the prosecution has been able to establish the accusations. Appellant filed a
revision petition questioning acquittal. On the day the matter was fixed
before the High Court it appears the learned counsel appearing for the
present appellant did not appear before the Court and only the learned
counsel for the State appeared.
The High Court held that since the appellant was not represented, the
matter had to be decided ex parte. The High Court appointed a learned
counsel as Amicus Curie and recorded that with the assistance of the
learned Amicus Curie and learned counsel for the State, the records were
perused and held there was no case for interference.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on the date fixed
there was an accident because of which learned counsel who was appearing
in the case all through could not appear. It is pointed out that learned
Amicus Curie did not have even records with him and he could have hardly
rendered any assistance to the court. It is also submitted that the accused
persons were not represented before the High Court.
2
4. Learned counsel for the accused on the other hand submitted that the
trial court analysed the evidence in great detail and no interference is called
for.
5. It is not necessary to go into the merits of the case. The appellant has
indicated the reason for which there was no appearance when the matter was
called before Learned Single Judge. That being the position, we set aside
the impugned order and remit the matter to the High Court for fresh disposal
in accordance with law. To avoid unnecessary delay, let the parties appear
before the High Court on the 3rd of March, 2009 without any further notice.
The learned Chief Justice of the High Court is requested to direct listing of
the case before an appropriate Bench. It is made clear that we have not
expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
6. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
………………………………J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
……………………………….J.
(V.S. SIRPURKAR)
………………………………J.
(ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)
New Delhi:
3
February 25, 2009
4