REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 578 OF 2002

Naresh Kumar  …..Appellant

Versus

Kala Wati & Ors. …..Respondents

J U D G M E N T

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