Appeal
Appeal against the judgment passed by the High Court dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant
2. Appellant is challenging the judgment and order dated 26thNovember, 20251 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, at Jabalpur dismissing the appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He was convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 18604 and sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court; and the conviction and sentence was affirmed by the High Court vide the impugned order.
3. Having regard to the final order we propose to pass, it is not considered necessary to examine the appeal on its own merits. Appellant was convicted by the relevant sessions court on 20th December, 2022 in respect of the crime of murder committed by him on 16th October, 2020. Thereafter, the appellant carried the conviction and sentence in appeal. It is pertinent to note that the appellant has been in custody since 16th October, 2020 itself as per the custody certificate on record and has remained in custody during the pendency of the appeal.
High Court appointed amicus curiae for appellant
4. Appellant’s appeal was listed on 20th November, 2025 before a Division Bench of the High Court. As per the order passed on that day, since no one was appearing on behalf of the appellant, the Division Bench appointed an amicus curiae to assist the Court and also listed the case for hearing the following week.
Amicus and counsel for state argued the matter
5. The amicus argued the appeal on 26th November, 2025. He submitted that the eye-witness account is unreliable; pointing particularly towards the account of one Arun Singh (PW-2) who, as per the amicus, was unable to explain how he could see the incident from a distance of about 100 metres. Furthermore, stress was also put onPW-2’s statements during cross-examination in which he stated that he was not knowing the appellant at the time of the incident and only at the instance of one Umashankar, PW-5, who was the brother of the deceased and also the complainant in the case, he got to know that the person who hit the deceased was in fact the appellant. Apart from this, the learned amicus also raised the point regarding the appellant being 74 years of age and accordingly prayed for some leniency in the matter. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the appeal and argued that the eye witness account is reliable and is supported by the axe recovered at the instance of the appellant on which human blood was found as per the FSL report and whose recovery has been duly proved by the Investigating Officer. Dismissal of the appeal was, accordingly, prayed.
Division Bench dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction of Trial court
6. Upon consideration of the evidence led at the trial, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence of the trial court.
7. Appellant was already in custody during the pendency of the appeal.
Argument on behalf of the appellant is that he case was decided within 6 days from the date of appointment of amicus and the amicus did not meet or have any conference with the appellant
8. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that he was denied justice. According to him, while the appellant was languishing in custody, he was not notified by the High Court that in the absence of the advocate engaged by him, an amicus has been appointed. The amicus was appointed by an order passed on 20th November, 2025 and the appeal was dismissed on 26thNovember, 2025, merely six days after the appointment of the amicus. In the intervening period, the amicus did not meet or have any conference with the appellant who was still lodged in the4correctional home regarding his pending appeal and failed to effectively present his case. This, as per the learned counsel for appellant, denied him an effective opportunity of being heard, in gross violation of principles of natural justice. With regard to the absence of the advocate engaged by the appellant, he submitted that the advocate was taking medical treatment and his illness prevented him to appear before the Court on 20th November, 2025.
Analysis
10. Therefore, in our considered opinion, we find that the High Court in its anxiety to deliver justice without further delay and decide the appeal expeditiously had not made an attempt to inform the appellant that in the absence of representation from his side an amicus had been appointed to represent him. Furthermore, it also does not seem that the amicus had any opportunity to interact with the appellant who was lodged in a correctional home. The High Court was under no obligation to inform the appellant regarding the absence of his advocate. Nevertheless, it would have been a prudent and desirable step had the appellant been intimated of the same. This acquires added significance in light of the consistent view taken by this Court that legal aid to an accused person must not be a mere ritual or a token formality, but a substantive and meaningful exercise that ensures effective assistance of counsel. While there can be no doubt about the bona fide intention of the High Court in appointing an amicus to represent convict whose advocate is not present to argue his appeal with a view to advancing the cause of justice, it would perhaps have better served the ends of justice had a formal notice been issued to the appellant informing him of the hearing and the arrangement made for his representation. Such a course becomes all the more imperative where, as in the present case, the appellant remained incarcerated during the pendency of the appeal.
Judgments regarding appointment of Amicus curie and his time for preparation
11.At this juncture, it may be apposite to note that this Court had the occasion to deal with a similar case quite recently. In Bhola Mahto v State of Jharkhand, accepting a similar technical plea raised by the appellant regarding non-service of notice after the appointment of an amicus, this Court ordered a de-novo hearing of his appeal and remanded the case back to the High Court. While doing so, this Court relied upon and reiterated the directions given in Anokhi Lal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh by a three-Judge Bench of this Court regarding the appointment of amicus while also making certain additional observations regarding service of notice after such appointment. For the sake of brevity, we do not wish to repeat the directions in Anokhi Lal (supra) and Bhola Mahto (supra) here. However, having regard to the facts of the present case, we deem it appropriate to emphasise two directions issued in Anokhi Lal (supra). First, that the amicus must be afforded reasonable time to prepare the matter; and second, that adequate opportunity must be granted to the amicus to meet and confer with the accused/convict concerned. Admittedly, neither of these directions appear to have been complied with in the present case.
Not the settled principles met in this case
12.Needless to say, judicial time is both valuable and finite, and ought not to be expended in a casual or avoidable manner. We therefore reiterate, at the cost of repetition, that the directions issued in Anokhi Lal (supra), as well as the observations made in Bhola Mahto (supra), must be followed scrupulously, in addition to adherence to the relevant rules governing the business and procedure of the courts concerned.
Conclusion
Remanded back for de novo hearing of appeal
13. We are, therefore, inclined to order a remand for hearing of the appeal de novo. The impugned order dated 26th November, 2025 is set aside with the result that the appellant’s appeal shall stand revived on the file of the High Court. It shall be decided in the manner observed hereafter
Resources
Judgments Cited/Relied Upon
- Anokhi Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2019) 20 SCC 196
- Brief: In this case, the Supreme Court established critical guidelines regarding the appointment of an amicus curiae. The Court in Nandkishore Mishra reiterated these principles, specifically emphasizing that an amicus must be provided with reasonable time to prepare the case and, crucially, must be given an adequate opportunity to meet and confer with the accused or convict.
- [Bhola Mahto v. State of Jharkhand, Criminal Appeal No. 1450 of 2026]
- Brief: This recent judgment was cited alongside Anokhi Lal to reinforce the same principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court underscored that the appointment of an amicus should not be a mere ritual or token formality; it must be a substantive, meaningful exercise to ensure that the accused receives effective legal assistance.
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
- Section 374(2): This section is cited as the basis under which the appellant filed his appeal against the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.
- Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Section 302: This is the primary charge under which the appellant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the lower court.
Party
Nandkishore Mishra vs The State of Madhya Pradesh - Criminal Appeal No. 2787/2026 -2026 INSC 531 - May 22, 2026 – Hon’ble Justice Dipankar Datta and Hon’ble Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.
