Right To Appeal Cannot Be Defeated By Lapses Of Jail And Legal Aid Authorities: Orissa High Court In Jail Criminal Appeal Condones 12-Year Delay Despite Regular Jail Inspections By District Judge, DLSA
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Orissa Division Bench of Justice S.K. Sahoo and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra has voiced dissatisfaction with the functioning of jail and legal aid authorities after discovering that a jail criminal appeal was filed around 12 years after a Sessions Court’s 2013 conviction for murder, despite periodic jail inspections by the District and Sessions Judge and District Legal Services Authority officers. Hearing the appeal of a life convict challenging this conviction, the Court condoned the delay, admitted the appeal and called for the trial court records. It further directed prison and legal services authorities to improve monitoring of convicts’ appeal rights, maintain proper records of appeals, and identify cases where legal aid and timely appeals are still lacking.
On 30 January 2013, an Additional Sessions Judge at Baripada convicted the appellant of murder under section 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The appellant remained in custody, and no regular criminal appeal or jail criminal appeal against this conviction was detected in the records. On 4 October 2025, a jail criminal appeal was filed before the High Court challenging the conviction and sentence, along with a prisoner’s petition.
When the matter was listed in November 2025, the Stamp Reporter noted a delay of 4,565 days in lodging the appeal. The Court asked the Registry to confirm whether any earlier appeal had been filed and sought reports from the District and Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, and the Jail Superintendent, Circle Jail, Baripada. The District and Sessions Judge stated that regular jail inspections were being conducted and convicts were informed about their right to appeal. The Secretary, DLSA, stated that the trial court record had not been called for in any appeal and remained in the record room and that the appellant’s appeal petition had been forwarded for legal aid. The Director General of Prisons provided information on the appellant’s case and on other convicts whose appeal details were not available with jail authorities.
The Court stated that “there is a delay of 4565 days in filing the JCRLA” and noted that the Registry verified that “only this Jail Criminal Appeal has been filed on 04.10.2025.” It recorded the District & Sessions Judge’s statement that “regular jail inspections have been conducted… and during every such jail visit, all convicts are individually informed regarding their right to prefer appeals.” The report further stated that “the delay in filing the appeal in this case was not intentional.”
The Court recorded the submission of the Secretary, DLSA, that the trial court record “has not been called for by this Court in connection with any Criminal Appeal or Jail Criminal Appeal and it is still available in the record room.” It also noted the Jail Superintendent’s statement that the counsel said “he had not preferred any Criminal Appeal of the appellant before this Court.”
The Bench recorded the DG Prisons’ statement that a special drive had revealed “more than 100 cases were detected, where the Criminal Appeals or Jail Criminal Appeals numbers of the convicts were not available with the jail authorities.” The Court noted his assurance that records of all appeals filed by convicts would be maintained, including “the case numbers, the name of the counsel, the contact number of counsel, the status of the interim application including the bail filed in the appeal.” The DG Prisons also stated that if a convict arranged counsel privately, the jail authority would “ascertain, verify and keep records thereof for future reference.”
The Court recorded that the DG Prisons assured a further special drive to identify convicts who had not filed appeals and take immediate steps for filing appeals “with the help of the Secretary, D.L.S.A.” The Court observed that “a right of appeal is an invaluable right… and can also be construed to be a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.” It further stated that when a convict lacks financial means, “it becomes the sacrosanct duty of authorities concerned to provide legal aid to him.”
The Bench observed that if a convict refuses to file an appeal, such refusal should be obtained in writing, noting the Supreme Court’s holding that appeals filed without consent amounted to misuse of process. It reiterated that convicts must be “guided properly and provided suitable advice regarding their statutory and constitutional rights.”
After considering the convict’s financial condition, custody period, and circumstances preventing earlier appeal, the Court stated: “we are inclined to condone the delay in filing the JCRLA.”
The Court stated: “Accordingly, the delay is condoned.” It then stated: “Heard. Admit. Call for trial Court records.” It appointed “Mr. Goutam Misra, learned Senior Advocate” as Amicus Curiae for the appellant and directed that “The Registry is directed to intimate the appellant about the engagement of the counsel. The name of Mr. Goutam Misra, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant be reflected in the cause list as well as at the top of the brief.”
“A copy of the prisoner’s petition as well as copy of the impugned judgment be provided to the learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant so also the learned counsel for the State. The file be placed before the learned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court so that a copy of the order shall be sent for obtaining the trial Court record and after receipt of the trial Court record, steps shall be taken for immediate preparation of the paper books by 12.12.2025 and after preparation of the paper books, a copy of the same shall be supplied to Mr. Misra, learned Senior Advocate as well as to the learned counsel for the State.”
“If the learned Senior Advocate wants to interact with the appellant to know about the case matters, the arrangement shall be made by the Registry through virtual mode. List this matter on 07.01.2026 for hearing.”
“The personal appearance of D.G., Prisons, the Jail Superintendent, Circle Jail, Baripada and the Secretary, D.L.S.A., Baripada, Mayurbhanj are dispensed with. A free copy of the order be handed over to the learned counsel for the State, which will be forwarded to the D.G., Prisons and also a copy of the order be handed over to Mr. Goutam Misra, learned Senior Advocate. A free copy of the order be forwarded to all the learned District and Sessions Judges with the approval of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice.”
Advocates Representing The Parties
For the Appellant: No appearance recorded for the appellant; Amicus Curiae appointed: Mr. Goutam Misra, Senior Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Jateswar Nayak, Additional Government Advocate
Case Title: Jatia Hembram v. State of Odisha
Case Number: JCRLA No.183 of 2025
Bench: Justice S.K. Sahoo; Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra
