IMTIYAZ RAMZAN KHAN versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA on 14 August 2018

IMTIYAZ RAMZAN KHAN

v.

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

(SLP (Crl.) No. 6740 of 2018)

AUGUST 14, 2018

[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]

Video conferencing: Arrangement of conducting videoconferencing between the counsel and the accused made mandatoryby the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee – Such a directionon part of Supreme Court Legal Services Committee is commendableand praiseworthy – It is essential for the counsels/Advocatesappearing in matters entrusted by the Legal Services Committee tohave the advantage of having a dialogue with either the accusedor those having knowledge of details about the case – Attempt tofacilitate dialogue between counsel and his client furthers the causeof justice and makes legal aid meaningful – Therefore, all LegalServices Authorities/Committees in every State to extend such facilityin every criminal case wherever the accused is lodged in jail –Administration of criminal justice.

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special LeavePetition (Crl.) No. 6740 of 2018.

From the Judgment and Order dated 30.08.2013 of the High Courtof Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No. 986 of 2005

WITH

SLP(Crl.) No. 6747 of 2018.

Shikhil Suri & Shiv Kumar Suri, Advs. for the Petitioners.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UDAY UMESH LALIT, J. 1. Though these two special leavepetitions are completely unconnected but they present one commonfeature and as such we propose to deal with these two special leavepetitions by this common Judgment.

2. Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 6740 (D.No.20446 of 2018)of 2018 challenges the decision dated 30.08.2013 of the High Court of

953

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AJudicature at Bombay dismissing Criminal Appeal No.986 of 2005preferred by the petitioner and thereby affirming his conviction for theoffence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentence of imprisonmentfor life. The prosecution principally relied on the testimony of two eyewitnesses, namely, PWs 3 and 5 whose evidence was found by the HighCourt to be worthy of reliance and completely unblemished. The decisionBrendered by the High Court, in our view, does not call for interferenceand as such we dismiss this special leave petition.

3. In Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 6747 (Diary No.21026 of2018) of 2018 the decision dated 17.02.2014 passed by the High Courtof Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No.850 of 2009 is underCchallenge. The High Court by its judgment and order affirmed theconviction of the petitioner under Section 302 IPC and his sentence ofimprisonment for life. Though the defence of sudden fight was taken onbehalf of the petitioner, the High Court on detailed analysis rejected saidtheory and found the petitioner guilty of the offence in question. HavingDgone through the matter, we see no reason to take a different view andas such we dismiss this special leave petition.

4. We now come to the common feature between these twomatters. Mr. Shikhil Suri, learned Advocate appeared for the accused inboth the matters. On pervious dates letters were circulated by the learnedEAdvocate appearing for the petitioners that the matters be adjourned soas to enable the counsel to make arrangements for conducting videoconferencing with the concerned accused. The letter further stated thatthis exercise was made mandatory as per the directions of the SupremeCourt Legal Services Committee. This Court readily agreed andadjourned the matters. On the adjourned date, we enquired from Mr.FShikhil Suri, learned Advocate whether he could successfully get in touchwith the concerned accused. According to the learned Advocate hecould not get in touch with the accused in the first matter but couldspeak with his sister whereas in the second matter he could have videoconference with the accused.G5.

5. In our view such a direction on part of the Supreme CourtLegal Services Committee is quite commendable and praiseworthy. Veryoften we see that the learned Advocates who appear in matters entrustedby the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, do not have theadvantage of having had a dialogue with either the accused or thoseHwho are in the know of the details about the case. This at times seriously hampers the efforts on part of the learned Advocates. All such attemptsto facilitate dialogue between the counsel and his client would furtherthe cause of justice and make legal aid meaningful. We, therefore, directall Legal Services Authorities/Committees in every State to extend similarsuch facility in every criminal case wherever the accused is lodged injail. They shall extend the facility of video conferencing between thecounsel on one hand and the accused or anybody in the know of thematter on the other, so that the cause of justice is well served.

Devika Gujral Petitions dismissed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H