NARESH KUMAR Vs. KALA WATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dismissing the Revision Petition filed by the appellant.

(2.) Background facts in a nutshell are as follows : The appellant is the brother of one Smt. Rekha Rani Jain (hereinafter referred to as the deceased). Respondents 1 and 2 faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC). Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 80 of 1992 held that the prosecution has not been able to establish the accusations. Appellant filed a revision petition questioning acquittal. On the day the matter was fixed before the High Court it appears the learned counsel appearing for the present appellant did not appear before the Court and only the learned counsel for the State appeared. The High Court held that since the appellant was not represented, the matter had to be decided ex parte. The High Court appointed a learned counsel as Amicus Curiae and recorded that with the assistance of the learned Amicus Curiae and learned counsel for the State, the records were perused and held there was no case for interference.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on the date fixed there was an accident because of which learned counsel who was appearing in the case all through could not appear. It is pointed out that learned Amicus Curiae did not have even records with him and he could have hardly rendered any assistance to the court. It is also submitted that the accused persons were not represented before the High Court.