NAGARAJU B C Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant (accused) was tried for offences punishable under Sections 324, 354, 376 r/w 511 IPC.

(2.) THE learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused of an offence punishable under Section 376 r/w 511 IPC and convicted the accused for offences punishable under Sections 354 and 324 IPC. Therefore, he is before this court.

(3.) IN Criminal Appeal No.1680/2013 dated 07.10.2013 (in the case of Surya Baksh Singh Vs. 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."