SUNIL KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was convicted under Section 302 and 324 both r/w Section 34 of IPC in terms of the judgement dated 20. 05. 1994 of the learned Additional Sessions judge and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- for the offence punishable under Sec. 302, IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of rs. 500/- for the offence punishable under Sec. 324, IPC.

(2.) THE appellant was released from jail on 23. 05. 1998 on interim bail for a period of one month in pursuance to the order dated 20. 2. 1998. The bail granted to the appellant was extended for a further period of 8 weeks by order dated 22. 06. 1998. On the expiry of the period of bail the appellant failed to surrender and could not be located. A letter dated 06. 09. 2000 was received by this court from the Dy. Superintendent, Central Jail No. 1, Tihar. The whereabouts of the surety also could not be found out. The proceedings under Sections 82/83 Cr. P. C. were initiated against the appellant and directions were passed to declare him a proclaimed offender. As per the order dated 15. 09. 2009 of the ACMM (North West), rohini Courts, Delhi, the appellant has been declared a proclaimed offender.

(3.) THIS Court has been faced with a number of appeals where the accused has either jumped the parole or where the sentence was suspended on account of the appeal not being taken up for hearing has become untraceable and neither the appellant nor the counsel appears to argue the appeal. A question arose how such matters have to be dealt with and the said aspect forms a part of the pronouncement by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Mukesh Vs. State 2008 (3) JCC 1986. The division Bench after discussing the different legal pronouncements of the Apex Court observed as under: