MANGARU Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leading appeal as well as connected appeal have been filed against the judgment and order dtd. 25/5/1983, passed by Special Judge (Additional Sessions Judge), Ballia, in S.T. No. 227 of 1982 (State Vs. Chand Govind and Others) convicting all appellants in the leading appeal as well as in the connected appeal under Sec. 302/149 and 307/149 IPC and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for life and 7 years respectively, and further convicting appellants in the leading appeal, namely Mahendra, Dhaneshwar, Chand Kishor and Sugriva and appellant Narayan in the connected appeal under Sec. 148 IPC and appellants Mangaru and Phuleshwar in the leading appeal under Sec. 147 IPC and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and one year respectively. The sentences on all the counts shall run concurrently.

(2.) On 13/5/2025 while reserving the judgment in the present case following order was passed:-

(3.) In Surya Baksh Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 14 SCC 222, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that it is always not necessary to adjourn the matter in case both, the appellant or his counsel/lawyer are absent and that the Court can decide the appeal on merits after perusal of the record and the judgement of the trial Court. It has further been observed that if the case is decided on merits in the absence of the appellant, the higher court can remedy the situation. It has also been observed that appointment of Amicus Curiae is also on the discretion of the court. In paragraph 26 of the said judgement, it was held that it is always not essential for the High Court to an appoint Amicus Curiae, paragraphs 24 and 26 of the said judgement whereof are quoted as under: