Supreme Court Holds Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Fair Hearing; Remands Case Where Appeal Decided Without Informing Accused
Case Name: Bhola Mahto v. State of Jharkhand
Citation: 2026 INSC 257
Date of Judgment/Order: 16 March 2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Held: The Supreme Court held that although a High Court may appoint an amicus curiae to represent an unrepresented accused, failure to inform the accused about such appointment and the final hearing of his appeal may result in denial of a fair hearing, warranting remand, as legal assistance must be real and meaningful and not merely a formal compliance with procedural requirements.
Summary: The appellant challenged the High Court’s judgment which, after appointing an amicus curiae due to absence of his counsel, partly allowed his appeal by converting conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentencing him to five years’ imprisonment. The appellant contended before the Supreme Court that he had not been informed about the absence of his counsel or the appointment of the amicus and that the grounds raised in his original appeal were not argued, resulting in prejudice. The Court noted that the appellant had been on bail for over two decades and had not diligently pursued his appeal, and therefore could not blame the amicus for not raising all grounds. However, the Court emphasized that while the High Court acted with the intent to expedite justice, it ought to have informed the appellant about the listing of the appeal and appointment of the amicus, especially after such a prolonged delay. The Court reiterated that legal aid must be meaningful and effective and that procedural fairness remains a core component of criminal justice, even when expeditious disposal is sought.
Decision: The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment dated 02.12.2024, and remanded the matter for fresh hearing of the criminal appeal by the High Court, directing that the appellant be given an opportunity to be represented by counsel; it further ordered restoration of bail status, directed expeditious disposal of the appeal, and issued guidelines regarding appointment of amicus curiae and service of notice on accused persons in similar situations.