Naresh Kumar Vs. Kala
Wati & Ors.  INSC 415 (25 February 2009)
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 578 OF 2002 Naresh
Kumar .....Appellant Versus Kala Wati & Ors. .....Respondents
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT,
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
(ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)
Pages: 1 2 3