SIVANESAN @ SIVA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the first accused in SC 81/02 which was disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North Paravoor. Today when the matter came up for hearing we noticed an endorsement by he Registry that an earlier appeal filed in 2003 arising out of the same case has been disposed of (dismissed by judgment dated 8.4.2005 in Crl. Appeal No. 168/2003). We therefore wanted all the relevant records to be perused. The learned counsel Smt. Sreeja Sohan, who has been appointed as counsel on State Brief to render legal assistance to the appellant submits that the counsel is not aware of the earlier disposal of Criminal Appeal No. 168 of 2003 against the same impugned judgment. It was in these circumstance that we referred to all the relevant records.

(2.) The records in Criminal Appeal No.168 of 2003 have been perused by us. It is seen that both the accused who were found guilty, convicted and sentenced under the impugned judgment together had preferred the said appeal. That appeal was disposed of as early as on 8.4.2005 by another Division Bench.

(3.) We do not in these circumstances find any merit in the challenge raised in this Criminal Appeal. The challenge against the impugned judgment by the appellant has already been disposed of by the judgment dated 8.4.2005 in Criminal Appeal 168 of 2003. This appeal therefore only deserves to be dismissed.