Bombay High Court
Layis Mohammad @ Langada Munna Sharif ... vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 20 November, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:50124
S.S.Kilaje 902-APEAL-941-2025 (CR).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2433 OF 2025
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 941 OF 2025
Layis Mohammad @ Langada Munna Sharif Khan ... Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents
...............
Mr. Ramprasad V. Gupta a/w. Mr. Rohit Vaishya and Ms. Shraddha
Rathod, Advocates for the Appellant.
Mr. H. J. Dedhia, APP for the State.
Ms. Aishwarya Sharma, Advocate for Respondent No.2 in IA/2433/2025.
Mr. Deepak Kushwaha, Advocate for the Appellant in Cri.
Appeal/897/2023 and Cri. Appeal/922/2023.
Mr. Sandeep Bhupat Satkar, Advocate for Respondent No.2 in Cri.
Appeal/897/2023 and Cri. Appeal/922/2023.
CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
DATED : 20th NOVEMBER, 2025.
P.C. :
1. During the course of the hearing of application for suspension of
substantive sentence it is brought to the notice of this Court that on behalf
of the appellant i.e. original accused No.1 no cross examination of PW-1 to
PW-6 has been conducted. Similarly the cross examination conducted by
the co-accused was adopted by the Advocate appearing on behalf of the
appellant in respect of PW-1 to 9 and 11.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not
represented before the learned Trial Court of the lawyer of his choice but
S.S.Kilaje 902-APEAL-941-2025 (CR).doc
the appointment was done to represent him by way of legal aid. It is his
submission that in case the Advocate for the appellant was not present, the
learned Trial Court ought to have appointed another Advocate in order to
ensure order that the opportunity is defence is given to the
appellant/accused. It is his submission that since since this has not been
done and material witnesses were not cross examined, it is a fit case for
setting aside the impugned Judgment and Order of conviction and then to
remand the matter for the purpose cross examination of witnesses by the
appellant on behalf of the appellant herein.
3. Learned APP and learned counsel for respondent No.2 though did
not dispute the fact that there was no cross examination of these witnesses,
according to them it was for the accused to ensure that the cross
examination of all witnesses is conducted and now no grievance can be
allowed to be made in that regard.
4. This argument could have been justified provided the accused was
represented by Advocate of his choice. Here in this case since admittedly
the Advocate was appointed by way of legal aid, it was incumbent on the
part of the Trial Court to ensure that during the trial the accused is
represented effectively. Needless to say that in case of serious offences, the
Trial Court ought to have been more vigilant in this regard.
5. The offences shall against the accused are serious in nature i.e.
S.S.Kilaje 902-APEAL-941-2025 (CR).doc
punishable under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short "POCSO
Act"). Having regard to the fact that the apparently appellant was not
represented before the Trial Court and no cross examination of witnesses is
done, the same has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Hence, this Court
finds it appropriate to give an opportunity to the appellant to cross
examine the witnesses who were not cross examined by the appointed
counsel.
6. Though learned counsel for the appellant seeks setting aside of the
impugned Judgment and Order and then to remand the matter, this Court
finds that during the trial no such request was made and hence at this
stage it would not be appropriate to set aside the Judgment and Order as
it would not be appropriate to go into merit of case and record any
findings. Instead ends of justice would meet if the appellant is given an
opportunity to cross examine the above stated witnesses and the Trial
Court is called upon to record finding upon such evidence brought on
record. The findings recorded by Trial Court be forwarded to this Court to
enable this Court to consider and decide the appeal in proper perspective.
7. Since the trial is of year 2019, the Trial Court to complete the
exercise of permitting appellant to cross examine witnesses from PW-1 to
PW-9 and PW-11 and recording findings within a period of 3 months from
S.S.Kilaje 902-APEAL-941-2025 (CR).doc
1st December, 2025. It is clarified that no extension on whatsoever ground
shall be given.
8. Advocate Mr. Gupta makes statement that he would appear before
the Trial Court on behalf of the appellant /accused. It is clarified in case
appellant is not represented before the Trial Court on any day without any
justified reason, it would be open for the Trial Court to close the evidence
of such witness who is present before the Court.
9. The Trial Court not to get influenced with the fact that the appeal is
kept pending and it would be duty of the Trial Court to record finding on
the basis of evidence brought on record on the cross examination
conducted of these witnesses by appellant.
10. Appeal is removed from board with liberty to circulate the appeal
once the report is received from Trial Court.
( R. M. JOSHI, J.)
SONALI by SONALI
SATISH Date:
2025.11.20
KILAJE 17:56:41
+0700
