Orissa High Court Asks Why Life Convict's Appeal Filed With 12 Yrs Delay Despite Regular Jail Inspections By District Judge, DLSA
The Orissa High Court has expressed disappointment over the working of Jail and Legal Aid authorities after finding 12 years delay in filing a Jail Criminal Appeal (JCRLA) against a murder conviction recorded by a Sessions Court in the year 2013.A Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra was taken aback by such delay which occurred despite regular...
The Orissa High Court has expressed disappointment over the working of Jail and Legal Aid authorities after finding 12 years delay in filing a Jail Criminal Appeal (JCRLA) against a murder conviction recorded by a Sessions Court in the year 2013.
A Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra was taken aback by such delay which occurred despite regular jail inspections being done by District & Sessions Judge and Officers of the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA).
One Jatia Hembram was found guilty for commission of offence under Section 302 (murder) of the IPC for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for life on 30.01.2013 by the then Additional Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj at Baripada.
Surprisingly, no criminal appeal was filed against the order of conviction for more than 12 years and a JCRLA was filed on behalf of the accused only on October 24, 2025. When the matter came up for admission hearing on Monday (November 24), the Court got astonished by noting made by the Stamp Reporter who had highlighted a delay of 4565 days in filing the appeal.
In order to ascertain the ground reality which led to such unfortunate violation of a constitutional right, the Court virtually interacted with the Secretary, DLSA, Baripada as well as the Senior Superintendent of Circle Jail, Baripada.
The Court questioned the Secretary as to whether any criminal appeal has been filed by the accused in his private capacity. The Judicial Officer informed that since it could not be ascertained as to whether any criminal appeal or JCRLA was filed previously, she recommended for filing of a fresh JCRLA before the High Court.
The Senior Superintendent of Jail, however, conveyed that the accused had filed a criminal appeal through an Advocate. When the Court queried about the case number of such criminal appeal, the officer could not answer.
The Bench headed by Justice Sahoo then directed the Secretary, DLSA to verify from the records as to whether the trial Court record of the case, either in original or in digital form, has ever been requisitioned by the High Court in connection with any criminal appeal or jail criminal appeal. She was asked to send a report on this aspect to the Registrar (Judicial), which shall be placed before the Bench on November 26. The Jail Superintendent was ordered to contact the counsel to whom the appellant had earlier entrusted the case for filing of criminal appeal so as to ascertain the status of such case, if filed.
Before parting, the Court also sought a report from the District & Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj asking him to explain the circumstances under which such lapse occurred.
“Let a report be called for from the learned District & Sessions Judge, Baripada, Mayurbhanj as to why the impugned judgment was not challenged before this Court earlier by filing CRLA/JCRLA since regular inspections are being made to the jail not only by the learned District Judge but also by the officers attached to District Legal Services Authority.”
The matter is now listed on November 26 for further hearing.
Notable to mention, the Apex Court in its landmark judgment Madhav Hayawadanrao Hoskot v. State of Maharashtra (1978) has explicitly held provision for free legal aid to file appeal against conviction to be a fundamental right flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution. While delivering the opinion for the three-judge Bench, Justice VR Krishna Iyer had pertinently observed –
“Every step that makes the right of appeal fruitful is obligatory and every action or inaction which stultifies it is unfair and, ergo, unconstitutional (In a sense, even Art. 19 may join hands with Art. 21, as the Menka Gandhi reasoning discloses). Pertinent to the point before us are two requirements: (1) service of a copy of the judgment to the prisoner in time to file all appeal and (ii) provision of free legal ser- vices to a prisoner who is indigent or otherwise disabled from securing legal assistance where the ends of justice call for such service. Both these are State responsibilities under Art. 21.”
The top Court had accordingly directed the jail administrations to provide facility to prisoners for filing of appeal. It had further ordered that where the prisoner is disabled from engaging a lawyer, on reasonable grounds such as indigence, the Court shall, if the ends of justice so require, assign competent counsel of for the prisoner's defence at the State expenses.
Case Title: Jatia Hembram v. State of Odisha
Case No: JCRLA No. 183 of 2025
Date of Order: November 24, 2025
Counsel for the Appellant: None
Counsel for the State: Mr. S.C. Pradhan, Addl. Standing Counsel