Fair hearing in criminal appeal requires legal assistance; statements to investigating officer cannot be used as substantive evidence.

A criminal appeal should not be decided without fair legal assistance where the case is serious or the sentence is substantial, because the appellate court may need to secure counsel at State expense to avoid miscarriage of justice; in the described matter, the absence of assistance undermined the High Court's disposal. Statements made to the investigating officer cannot be treated as substantive evidence, except for limited use as permitted by law for contradiction; reliance on such statements without examining the officer was legally erroneous and tainted the conviction. On that basis, the conviction and sentence were set aside, the appeal was remitted for fresh disposal, and the matter was restored for rehearing.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a criminal appeal can be decided on merits without legal assistance for the accused when counsel does not appear, and whether the absence of such assistance may vitiate the appellate decision. (ii) Whether reliance on statements made to the investigating officer as substantive evidence was impermissible and justified setting aside the conviction and remitting the appeal.

Issue (i): Whether a criminal appeal can be decided on merits without legal assistance for the accused when counsel does not appear, and whether the absence of such assistance may vitiate the appellate decision.

Analysis: The appellate court is not bound to dismiss a criminal appeal for default when counsel is absent, and it may decide the matter on the record. At the same time, where the sentence is substantial and the case is serious, prudence may require the court to appoint counsel at State expense or otherwise secure assistance to ensure a fair hearing. Proceeding unaided in a grave matter may result in failure of justice.

Conclusion: The absence of legal assistance in the present case contributed to a miscarriage of justice and rendered the High Court's disposal vulnerable.

Issue (ii): Whether reliance on statements made to the investigating officer as substantive evidence was impermissible and justified setting aside the conviction and remitting the appeal.

Analysis: Statements made to the investigating officer cannot be used as substantive evidence, except to the limited extent permitted by law for contradiction. The appellate judgment took account of such statements even though the investigating officer had not been examined. That approach was legally erroneous and tainted the affirmance of conviction and sentence.

Conclusion: The conviction was set aside and the appeal was remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The appellate judgment was annulled and the criminal appeal was restored for rehearing, with liberty to seek appropriate bail pending the fresh decision.

Ratio Decidendi: A criminal appeal must be decided on merits with fair legal assistance where required, and statements to the investigating officer cannot be treated as substantive evidence.

---