Madras High Court Remits Matter To Trial Court After Noting Judgment Was Pronounced Without Hearing Defence's Oral Arguments

The Madras High Court recently remitted a case back to the trial court after noting that the judgment in the case was pronounced without hearing the oral arguments of the defence side. [2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 250] Emphasizing the requirement of hearing the defence side during the trial, the bench of Justice GR Swaminathan and Justice V Lakshminarayan held that even if the counsel for the defence does not appear, it is for the court to take alternative steps and the case cannot be dismissed for default. “We reiterate that the right to advance oral arguments is not only a statutory right but also assumes the character of a fundamental right. This is because, oral submission is a material part of a fair trial. If the accused does not avail this right, in the larger interest of justice, the trial Judge is obliged to appoint a legal aid counsel or an amicus. When the counsel for the accused does not appear before the appellate court to argue the appeal, it cannot be dismissed for default. The court is obliged to proceed with the hearing of the case only after appointing an amicus curiae,” the court said. The court was hearing a petition filed by a father and son who were incarcerated in the Salem Central Prison in connection with a murder case. Since the daughter was getting married, they had sought an interim suspension of sentence so that they can attend the marriage. When the matter came up before the vacation bench, the court noted that the judgment was passed without hearing the defence side. Following this, the court decided to take up the appeal against the judgment, making it clear that the appeal would not be taken up on merits but on whether the trial court's judgment was vitiated for not having heard the arguments of the accused. The court noted that after concluding the prosecution submission, the defence counsel did not proceed to place his arguments. The court noted that since there was an order of the High Court to conclude the trial in the case within 4 months, the trial court proceeded to pass the judgment on the basis of available material. The bench noted that the question before it was whether the court could have pronounced the judgment without the oral arguments of the defence side. Answering in the negative, the court observed that the arguments of the defence side were not just a right conferred on the accused but were one of the facets of a fair trial. The court noted that the right to a fair trial was recognized as a fundamental right flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution and even if the accused wanted, he could not be allowed to waive the right. The court added that if the accused failed to exercise his right, the court had to make appropriate arrangements. The bench also disagreed with the view taken by Justice Vikram Nath while he was a judge of the Allahabad High Court wherein the judge had held that if the trial court was constrained to give judgment without the benefit of defence argument, it could be set right by granting opportunity at the appellate stage. The bench held that as per the language used in Section 235 CrPC, a judge shall pronounce judgment after hearing the arguments, which meant that the arguments should precede the pronouncement of judgment. The court thus underlined that unless the arguments on either side were heard, the judge could not proceed to the next stage of pronouncement of judgment. The court highlighted that a full-length argument was possible only at the time of trial and an appellate lawyer could not argue before the appellate court like a trial lawyer does before the trial court. In the present case, the court held that the right to fair trial had been breached since the judgment of conviction was passed without hearing the defence. Thus, the court deemed it fit to set aside the judgment and remit the matter back to the trial court. The court asked the trial judge to call upon both sides to advance their arguments and if the accused did not extend their cooperation, an amicus could be appointed to argue the case. The court made it clear that the matter was remanded only for hearing the arguments of either side. Counsel for Appellants: Mr. S. Silambu Selvan Counsel for Respondents: Mr. R. Ganesh Kumar Government Counsel (Criminal Side) Case Title: Chinnavan @ Govindaraj and Another v The State and Another Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 250 Case No: Crl.Appeal No.1185 of 2022Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment

Madras High Court Remits Matter To Trial Court After Noting Judgment Was Pronounced Without Hearing Defence's Oral Arguments

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

Madras High Court Remits Matter To Trial Court After Noting Judgment Was Pronounced Without Hearing Defence's Oral Arguments

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasana Sajeev

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers