1

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.  6740  of 2018 (Diary No.20446 of 2018)

Imtiyaz Ramzan Khan ……Petitioner Versus

State of Maharashtra ..…. Respondent

WITH

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) No.  6747 of 2018 (Diary  No.21026 of 2018)

Ramhit Patel ….. Petitioner

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh …. Respondent

JUDGMENT

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. Though these two special leave petitions are completely unconnected

but they present one common feature and as such we propose to deal with

these two special leave petitions by this common Judgment.

2. Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.________ (D.No.20446 of 2018) of

2018   challenges  the  decision  dated  30.08.2013  of  the  High  Court  of

2

Judicature at Bombay dismissing Criminal Appeal No.986 of 2005 preferred

by  the  petitioner  and  thereby  affirming  his  conviction  for  the  offence

punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life.

The prosecution principally relied on the testimony of two eye witnesses,

namely, PWs 3 and 5 whose evidence was found by the High Court to be

worthy of reliance and completely unblemished.  The decision rendered by

the High Court, in our view, does not call for interference and as such we

dismiss this special leave petition.

3. In  Special  Leave  Petition  (Crl.)  No._______  (Diary  No.21026  of

2018) of 2018  the decision dated 17.02.2014 passed by the High Court of

Chhattisgarh  at  Bilaspur  in  Criminal  Appeal  No.850  of  2009  is  under

challenge.   The  High  Court  by  its  judgment  and  order  affirmed  the

conviction  of  the  petitioner  under  Section  302  IPC  and  his  sentence  of

imprisonment for life.  Though the defence of sudden fight was taken on

behalf of the petitioner, the High Court on detailed analysis rejected said

theory and found the petitioner guilty of the offence in question.  Having

gone through the matter, we see no reason to take a different view and as

such we dismiss this special leave petition.

3

4. We now come to the common feature between these two matters.  Mr.

Shikhil Suri, learned Advocate appeared for the accused in both the matters.

On pervious dates letters were circulated by the learned Advocate appearing

for the petitioners that the matters be adjourned so as to enable the counsel

to make arrangements for conducting video conferencing with the concerned

accused.  The letter further stated that this exercise was made mandatory as

per the directions of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.  This

Court readily agreed and adjourned the matters.  On the adjourned date, we

enquired  from  Mr.  Shikhil  Suri,  learned  Advocate  whether  he  could

successfully  get  in  touch with the concerned accused.   According to  the

learned Advocate he could not  get  in touch with the accused in the first

matter but could speak with his sister whereas in the second matter he could

have video conference with the accused.

5. In  our  view such  a  direction  on part  of  the  Supreme Court  Legal

Services Committee is quite commendable and praiseworthy.  Very often we

see  that  the  learned  Advocates  who  appear  in  matters  entrusted  by  the

Supreme Court  Legal  Services Committee,  do not  have the advantage of

having had a dialogue with either the accused or those who 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  attempts  to  facilitate  dialogue

4

between the counsel and his client would further the cause of justice and

make  legal  aid  meaningful.   We,  therefore,  direct  all  Legal  Services

Authorities/Committees  in  every  State  to  extend  similar  such  facility  in

every  criminal  case  wherever  the  accused  is  lodged  in  jail.   They  shall

extend the facility of video conferencing between the counsel on one hand

and the accused or anybody in the know of the matter on the other, so that

the cause of justice is well served.

…………………..……J. (Abhay Manohar Sapre)

…………………..……J. (Uday Umesh Lalit)

New Delhi, August 14, 2018