KARIBASAVA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'accused') was tried for offences punishable under sections 307 and 379 IPC. The learned trial Judge has convicted accused for an offence punishable under section 307 IPC and acquitted accused for an offence punishable under section 379 IPC. Therefore, he is before this court. The accused is on bail. The learned counsel for appellant is absent. I have heard Sri M. Narayana Reddy, learned SPP for State.

(2.) IN Criminal Appeal No. 1680/2013 dated 07.10.2013 (in the case of Surya Baksh Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh), the Supreme Court has held: - - (a) That the High Court cannot dismiss an appeal for non -prosecution simpliciter without examining the merits; (b) That the Court is not bound to adjourn the matter if both the Appellant or his counsel/lawyer are absent; (c) That the Court may, as a matter of prudence or indulgence, adjourn the matter but it is not bound to do so; (d) That it can dispose of the appeal after perusing the record and judgment of the trial court. (e) That if the accused is in jail and cannot, on his own, come to court, it would be advisable to adjourn the case and fix another date to facilitate the appearance of the Appellant -accused if his lawyer is not present, and if the lawyer is absent and the court deems it appropriate to appoint a lawyer at the State expense to assist it, nothing in law would preclude the court from doing so; and (f) That if the case is decided on merits in the absence of the Appellant, the higher court can remedy the situation. In view of what has been held in the above decision, I have taken up this appeal for consideration on merits.

(3.) THE defence of accused is one of total denial.