The appointment of an amicus curiae for an incarcerated appellant requires prior notice to the accused and must afford the counsel sufficient time and opportunity to consult with the client to ensure the constitutional right to effective legal assistance is not rendered a mere formality.

JUDGMENT

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Appellant is challenging the judgment and order dated 26th November, 2025 [impugned Order] passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh [High Court], at Jabalpur dismissing the appeal [Criminal Appeal No. 845 of 2023] under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He was convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [IPC] and sentenced to life imprisonment by the 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. Appellant was convicted by the relevant sessions court on 20th December, 2022 in respect of the crime of murder committed by him on 16th October, 2020. Thereafter, the appellant carried the conviction and sentence in appeal. It is pertinent to note that the appellant has been in custody since 16th October, 2020 itself as per the custody certificate on record and has remained in custody during the pendency of the appeal.

4. Appellant’s appeal was listed on 20th 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 Division Bench appointed an amicus curiae [amicus] to assist the Court and also listed the case for hearing the following week.

5. The amicus argued the appeal on 26th 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 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 on 20th November, 2025 and the appeal was dismissed on 26th 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 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 opportu