Nandkishore Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NON-REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 531
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. /2026
(Arising out of SLP (CRL) No. 3371 OF 2026)


NANDKISHORE MISHRA …PETITIONER

VERSUS


THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH …RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
1. Leave granted.
th
2. Appellant is challenging the judgment and order dated 26
1 2
November, 2025 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh , at
3
Jabalpur dismissing the appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. He was convicted under Section 302 of
4
Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to life imprisonment by the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
JATINDER KAUR
Date: 2026.05.23
13:07:12 IST
Reason:

1
impugned Order
2
High Court
3
Criminal Appeal No. 845 of 2023
4
IPC

trial court; and the conviction and sentence was affirmed by the High
Court vide the impugned order.
3. Having regard to the final order we propose to pass, it is not
considered necessary to examine the appeal on its own merits.
th
Appellant was convicted by the relevant sessions court on 20
December, 2022 in respect of the crime of murder committed by him
th
on 16 October, 2020. Thereafter, the appellant carried the conviction
and sentence in appeal. It is pertinent to note that the appellant has
th
been in custody since 16 October, 2020 itself as per the custody
certificate on record and has remained in custody during the
pendency of the appeal.
th
4. Appellant’s appeal was listed on 20 November, 2025 before a
Division Bench of the High Court. As per the order passed on that
day, since no one was appearing on behalf of the appellant, the
5
Division Bench appointed an amicus curiae to assist the Court and
also listed the case for hearing the following week.
th
5. The amicus argued the appeal on 26 November, 2025. He submitted
that the eye-witness account is unreliable; pointing particularly
towards the account of one Arun Singh (PW-2) who, as per the
amicus, was unable to explain how he could see the incident from a
distance of about 100 metres. Furthermore, stress was also put on
PW-2’s statements during cross-examination in which he stated that
he was not knowing the appellant at the time of the incident and only

5
amicus
2

at the instance of one Umashankar, PW-5, who was the brother of the
deceased and also the complainant in the case, he got to know that
the person who hit the deceased was in fact the appellant. Apart from
this, the learned amicus also raised the point regarding the appellant
being 74 years of age and accordingly prayed for some leniency in
the matter. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the
appeal and argued that the eye witness account is reliable and is
supported by the axe recovered at the instance of the appellant on
which human blood was found as per the FSL report and whose
recovery has been duly proved by the Investigating Officer. Dismissal
of the appeal was, accordingly, prayed.
6. Upon consideration of the evidence led at the trial, the Division Bench
dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence of the
trial court.
7. Appellant was already in custody during the pendency of the appeal.
8. Before us, the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently
contended that he was denied justice. According to him, while the
appellant was languishing in custody, he was not notified by the High
Court that in the absence of the advocate engaged by him, an amicus
has been appointed. The amicus was appointed by an order passed
th th
on 20 November, 2025 and the appeal was dismissed on 26
November, 2025, merely six days after the appointment of the
amicus . In the intervening period, the amicus did not meet or have
any conference with the appellant who was still lodged in the
3

correctional home regarding his pending appeal and failed to
effectively present his case. This, as per the learned counsel for
appellant, denied him an effective opportunity of being heard, in
gross violation of principles of natural justice. With regard to the
absence of the advocate engaged by the appellant, he submitted that
the advocate was taking medical treatment and his illness prevented
th
him to appear before the Court on 20 November, 2025.
9. We had urged the learned counsel appearing for the State of Madhya
Pradesh to obtain appropriate instructions with regard to the
aforesaid submission. No submission to the contrary has been
advanced. There is also nothing on record to show that any notice
was served upon the appellant or that he received any communication
regarding the consideration of his appeal. In the absence of any such
material, we are constrained to draw an adverse inference and accept
the submission of the appellant in this regard.
10. Therefore, in our considered opinion, we find that the High Court in
its anxiety to deliver justice without further delay and decide the
appeal expeditiously had not made an attempt to inform the appellant
that in the absence of representation from his side an amicus had
been appointed to represent him. Furthermore, it also does not seem
that the amicus had any opportunity to interact with the appellant
who was lodged in a correctional home. The High Court was under no
obligation to inform the appellant regarding the absence of his
advocate. Nevertheless, it would have been a prudent and desirable
4

step had the appellant been intimated of the same. This acquires
added significance in light of the consistent view taken by this Court
that legal aid to an accused person must not be a mere ritual or a
token formality, but a substantive and meaningful exercise that
ensures effective assistance of counsel. While there can be no doubt
about the bona fide intention of the High Court in appointing an
amicus to represent convict whose advocate is not present to argue
his appeal with a view to advancing the cause of justice, it would
perhaps have better served the ends of justice had a formal notice
been issued to the appellant informing him of the hearing and the
arrangement made for his representation. Such a course becomes all
the more imperative where, as in the present case, the appellant
remained incarcerated during the pendency of the appeal.
11. At this juncture, it may be apposite to note that this Court had the
occasion to deal with a similar case quite recently. In Bhola Mahto
6
v State of Jharkhand , accepting a similar technical plea raised by
the appellant regarding non-service of notice after the appointment
of an amicus , this Court ordered a de-novo hearing of his appeal and
remanded the case back to the High Court. While doing so, this Court
relied upon and reiterated the directions given in Anokhi Lal vs.
7
State of Madhya Pradesh by a three-Judge Bench of this Court
regarding the appointment of amicus while also making certain

6
Criminal Appeal No. 1450 of 2026
7
2019 20 SCC 196
5

additional observations regarding service of notice after such
appointment. For the sake of brevity, we do not wish to repeat the
directions in Anokhi Lal (supra) and Bhola Mahto (supra) here.
However, having regard to the facts of the present case, we deem it
appropriate to emphasise two directions issued in Anokhi Lal
(supra). First, that the amicus must be afforded reasonable time to
prepare the matter; and second, that adequate opportunity must be
granted to the amicus to meet and confer with the accused/convict
concerned. Admittedly, neither of these directions appear to have
been complied with in the present case.
12. Needless to say, judicial time is both valuable and finite, and ought
not to be expended in a casual or avoidable manner. We therefore
reiterate, at the cost of repetition, that the directions issued in
Anokhi Lal (supra), as well as the observations made in Bhola
Mahto (supra), must be followed scrupulously, in addition to
adherence to the relevant rules governing the business and procedure
of the courts concerned.
13. We are, therefore, inclined to order a remand for hearing of the
th
appeal de novo . The impugned order dated 26 November, 2025 is
set aside with the result that the appellant’s appeal shall stand
revived on the file of the High Court. It shall be decided in the manner
observed hereafter.
14. The appeal may be listed on any date within 2 months of this
judgment. Preferably, the very same member Judges of the Division
6

th
Bench who had the occasion to decide the appeal on 26 November,
2025, may be assigned to hear the appeal, but subject to their
availability. If such assignment is not possible or is unworkable, we
request the Chief Justice of the High Court to assign the appeal to a
Division Bench of which at least one of the member Judges, who
earlier decided the appellant’s appeal, forms the quorum.
15. Since the appellant wishes to be represented by his own counsel
before the Division Bench, there shall be no need to appoint an
amicus if such counsel does not turn up to press the appeal on the
date to be notified a week in advance by the Registry. In the unlikely
event of the appellant being unrepresented again, the Division Bench
would be well advised to decide the appeal in such manner it thinks
fit and proper.
16. Taking note of the fact that the appellant is a septuagenarian, it
would be eminently desirable if the Division Bench decides the appeal
as early as possible from the date of first hearing. All points on merit
are kept open to be urged by the appellant and the respondent before
the High Court. While deciding the appeal, the High Court may not be
influenced by the observations/findings made either in the
proceedings before this Court, the present judgment or in the
th
impugned order dated 26 November, 2025.
17. Appellant remained in custody during the pendency of his appeal
prior to the dismissal by the impugned order. We clarify that he shall
7

remain in custody till such time the appeal is disposed of by the
Division Bench on its own merits in terms of this order.
18. Accordingly, the appeal stands partly allowed on the aforesaid terms.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.



…………………………….J.
(DIPANKAR DATTA)




……………..……………………….J.
(SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA)
NEW DELHI;
MAY 22, 2026.

8