KAYYOOM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Kayyoom was charged for the offences under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act for having committed the murder of his wife. The trial court in Sessions Trial No.487 of 2006 arising out of Case Crime No. 410 of 2005 P.S.- Sector-39, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar has convicted the appellant with a punishment of life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence of murder and two years rigorous imprisonment coupled with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- on the count of the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act. On the failure of deposit of fine, the appellant is to undergo one year and three months additional imprisonment respectively for the two offences. The two brothers of the appellant Shehjad and Raja, who were also accused and faced trial, have been acquitted.

(2.) At the very outset, we may mention that the appeal was presented and was being conducted by Sri A.K. Bajpayee Advocate. However, after the receipt of the lower court records on 3rd December, 2007 in spite of the revision of the list, no counsel appeared on behalf of the appellant. On 07th August, 2008 the case was listed before a Bench of which one of the Hon'ble Judges was the learned Sessions Judge who had tried the case when the conviction was recorded, and therefore the case was directed to come up before another Bench, as a consequence whereof it was nominated to the Bench presided over by Hon'ble Amar Saran, J. The said Bench also released the case and then it was directed to be listed before a Bench presided over by Hon'ble B.A. Zaidi, J. The matter was adjourned and the bail application remained pending. Ultimately the case was again released by the said Bench and was directed to be listed before the appropriate Bench. The office put up a note before Hon'ble The Chief Justice for placing it before a Bench to be nominated whereupon a Division Bench presided over by Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh, J was nominated to hear the appeal.

(3.) On 25th April, 2012 when the case was called out, no one appeared on behalf of the appellant and the case was directed to be listed after two weeks'. The appeal was again released by the said Bench as one of the Hon'ble Judges was sitting singly. Hon'ble The Chief Justice then passed an order that is should be listed before the appropriate Bench according to the roster.