CHINNAPONNUversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

                                  (2009] 3 S.C.R. 197

.........
                                   CHINNAPONNU                                 A
                                         v.
                              STATE OF TAMIL NADU
                         (Criminal Appeal No. 271 of 2009)

                                FEBRUARY 11, 2009
                                                                               B
             [ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.]

   ~
                 Penal Code, 1860 - s. 304 (Part II) - Sudden quarrel
            between parties - Accused attacked deceased resulting in her
            death - Conviction u/s. 304 (Part II) - Appeal by accused          c
            against conviction admitted by High Court - However,
            disposal of appeal on account of non-appearance of counsel
            of accused when matter taken up before the Bench of High
            Court - On appeal held: Counsel for the accused could not
 ,          appear on account of various difficulties - Hence, matter          D
            remitted to High Court for afresh hearing.

                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
            No. 271 of 2009.
                                                                               E
                From the Judgment and Order dated 16.10.2006 of the
            Madurai Bench of Madras High Court at Madurai, in Criminal
            Appeal No. 856 of 1997 .
     •
                G. Sivabalamurgan, Y. Arunaigiri and L.K. Pandey for the       F
            Appellant.

                The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

                DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Leave granted.                        G
   ~

                2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned
            Single Judge of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench,
            dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. Appellant was held
                                          197                                  H
    198        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2009] 3 S.C.R.

                                                                       ,,>-
A guilty of offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the
  Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and sentenced to
  undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years by learned
  Principal Judge, Dindigul.

B       3. The factual position need not be gone into in detail in
    view of order proposed to be passed.

        4. The accused faced trial for alleged commission of
  offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. It was the
                                                                       ..
c prosecution version that in the course of sudden quarrel, the
  accused attacked Lakshmi (hereinafter referred to as the
  'deceased') who was stated to be the second wife of one
  Samuvel. On 10.12.1994 the occurrence occurred. The
  accused faced trial and as noted above was convicted by the
  trial court. The appeal before the High Court was admitted
D
  considering the various grounds of challenge raised by the
  appellant. It appears from the impugned order of the High Court
  that the appellant's counsel did not appear when the matter was
  taken up and after hearing learned Additional Prosecutor, the
  appeal was disposed of.
E
       5. It was pointed out learned counsel for the appellant that
  because of various difficulties the appellant's counsel could not
  appear and more particularly neither the appellant nor his
  counsel had any knowledge that the matter was to be taken up
F before the Madurai Bench of the High Court.

        6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other
    hand submitted that the appellant and her counsel ought to have
    been more vigilant.
G
         7. While issuing notice on 23.7.2007, it was indicated that
    the matter may be remitted for fresh hearin~1 because the
    appellant was not represented when the matter was taken up
    by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.
H
             CHINNAPONNU v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU                   199
                    [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

          8. Considering the difficulties highlighted by the appellant
    to explain non-appearance of the counsel we are satisfied that
    this is a fit case where the High Court should re-hear the matter.

        9. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the
    case. We set aside the impugned judgment and remit the
    matter to the High Court for fresh hearing.

•          10. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent

    N.J.                                     Appeal partly allowed.




>