Bhola Mahto v. State of Jharkhand 2026 INSC 257 - Appeal Against Conviction - Appointment Of Amicus

Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 374 - Henceforth, whenever an appellate court considers it desirable to appoint an amicus to represent a convict whose counsel is absent, such court may also consider the desirability of issuing a notice from the registry to the address of the convict mentioned in the memorandum of appeal, for such notice to be served on him through the jurisdictional police station, with an intimation that the convict may contact the learned amicus and provide him necessary instructions so that his case is argued before the court effectively and meaningfully. In the event the convict contacts the amicus and provides instructions, there would ordinarily be no impediment in proceeding with hearing of the appeal. If, indeed, the convict desires to have his own counsel argue the appeal on his behalf and not the amicus, the court may hear such counsel in addition to the amicus. However, if the service report indicates that the convict was not found at the address or that he refused to accept notice despite being present, it would amount to sufficient compliance if the notice is pasted on the outer wall of the premises, address whereof is mentioned in the cause title of the memorandum of appeal. Should the convict still remain dormant, and it is so reported, the High Court may proceed to decide the appeal without waiting for the convict to turn up either in person or through the counsel of his choice engaged by him. This process would substantially serve the purpose of eliminating any plea of unfairness being raised before this Court if an appeal is disposed of upon hearing the amicus appointed by the court. Additionally, in a case of like nature where the appeal is listed two decades after grant of bail, this process would ensure obtaining of information as to whether the appeal survives for decision or stands abated. In case of the latter, the courts could avoid spending precious judicial time deciding an appeal which, by operation of law, may not require a decision on merits. Of course, for a convict in custody who has committed an offence punishable with death or life imprisonment, the directions in Anokhi Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2019) 20 SCC 196 have to be scrupulously followed apart from the relevant rules regulating the business of the courts concerned. (Para 23)

Summary: The appellant, Bhola Mahto, was originally convicted under section 302 IPC for a 2000 homicide, but in 2024 the Jharkhand High Court, with the aid of an amicus curiae appointed in his counsel’s absence, altered the conviction to section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced him to five years’ rigorous imprisonment. The Supreme Court rejected his plea to argue fresh acquittal grounds directly in its forum but found that, given the 20‑year delay and the lack of any notice to him about his counsel’s non‑appearance and the appointment of an amicus, the High Court should rehear the appeal de novo. It therefore set aside the High Court’s 2024 judgment, revived the appeal, directed an expeditious rehearing with all merits kept open, ordered his release on bail restoring the status quo ante, and laid down further procedural guidance on issuing notice to convicts when appointing amicus curiae in appellate criminal proceedings.