Notice to Convict Before Amicus Argues a Decades-Old Appeal

The Supreme Court, in a judgment delivered on 16 March 2026 by Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, dismissed the appeal of Bhola Mahto against the Jharkhand High Court's order that converted his conviction for murder to one for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. More importantly, the Court used the occasion to lay down procedural safeguards for High Courts hearing criminal appeals that have languished for decades.

Background

The appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC on 25 November 2002 for an offence committed on 28 October 2000 and sentenced to life imprisonment. His appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC was filed before the Jharkhand High Court in early 2003. He was released on bail in March 2003 after suspension of sentence. The appeal then remained unheard for nearly two decades.

When the appeal was finally listed on 14 November 2024, no one appeared for the appellant despite repeated calls. The Division Bench appointed an advocate of more than fifteen years' standing as amicus curiae and directed that his name be reflected in the cause list for the appellant. On 2 December 2024, the amicus argued that the case fell within Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC because the incident occurred in the heat of passion during a sudden quarrel over watering a field. The High Court accepted that submission, set aside the murder conviction, recorded conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC, and sentenced the appellant to five years rigorous imprisonment.

The Grievance Before the Supreme Court

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that he was unaware that his engaged counsel had stopped appearing and that an amicus had been appointed without his knowledge. A report called for from the Registrar General confirmed that no notice was issued to the appellant about non-appearance of his counsel or the appointment of an amicus. The appellant sought leave to argue all grounds raised in his original memorandum of appeal, which the amicus had not pressed, to seek an acquittal.

Holding on the Amicus Role

The Court refused to reopen the merits. It held that an amicus appointed by the court is not bound by the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal and may, in his wisdom, urge independent grounds. Here, the amicus urged a single point under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC and succeeded. No prejudice arose merely because the original grounds were not argued, since the amicus secured a reduction from life imprisonment to five years on another tenable ground.

Guidelines for Long-Pending Appeals

The Bench laid down a procedure for High Courts before deciding criminal appeals through an amicus where the convict is not represented. Notice must be served on the convict at the address in the memorandum of appeal. If the convict is not found or refuses to accept notice, pasting the notice on the outer wall of the premises mentioned in the cause title amounts to sufficient compliance. If the convict still remains dormant, the High Court may proceed to decide the appeal on hearing the amicus. The Court added that this exercise also helps ascertain whether the appeal has abated, sparing judicial time. For convicts in custody facing death or life imprisonment, the directions in Anokhi Lal continue to apply along with the relevant court rules.

Takeaway

A convict on bail cannot stall an old appeal indefinitely, but High Courts must serve notice at the memo address before letting an amicus argue, and a successful amicus ground will not be reopened on the plea that original grounds were left unargued.