Chinnaponnu Vs. State
of Tamil Nadu [2009] INSC 272 (11 February 2009)
Judgment
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 271 OF 2009
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 4916 of 2007) Chinnaponnu .....Appellant Versus
State of Tamil Nadu ....Respondent
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT,
J.
1.
Leave
granted.
2.
Challenge
in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Madras High
Court, Madurai Bench, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. Appellant was
held guilty of offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for seven years by learned Principal Judge, Dindigul.
3.
The
factual position need not be gone into in detail in view of order proposed to
be passed.
4.
The
accused faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section
302 IPC. It was the prosecution version that in the course of sudden quarrel,
the accused attacked Lakshmi (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') who
was stated to be the second wife of one Samuvel. On 10.12.1994 the occurrence
occurred. The accused faced trial and as noted above was convicted by the trial
court. The appeal before the High Court was admitted considering the various
grounds of challenge raised by the appellant. It appears from the impugned
order of the High Court that the appellant's counsel did not appear when the
matter was taken up and after hearing learned Additional Prosecutor, the appeal
was disposed of.
5.
It
was pointed out learned counsel for the appellant that because of various
difficulties the appellant's counsel could not appear and more particularly
neither the appellant nor his counsel had any knowledge that the matter was to
be taken up before the Madurai Bench of the High Court.
6.
Learned
counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand submitted that the appellant
and her counsel ought to have been more vigilant.
7.
While
issuing notice on 23.7.2007, it was indicated that the matter may be remitted
for fresh hearing because the appellant was not represented when the matter was
taken up by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.
8.
Considering
the difficulties highlighted by the appellant to explain non-appearance of the
counsel we are satisfied that this is a fit case where the High Court should
re-hear the matter.
9.
We
have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. We set aside the
impugned judgment and remit the matter to the High Court for fresh hearing.
10.
The
appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
..........................................J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
..........................................J.
Back
