RAMCHANDRA KUNDALIKA JADHAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this appeal is limited to conviction of the appellants under sections 498-A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satara on 17.8.1996 in Sessions Case No.213/1992 whereby the appellants were acquitted for offence punishable under section 306 read with section 34 of I.P.C.. However, they were found guilty for an offence punishable under section 498-A of I.P.C. and they were sentenced to suffer R.I. for six months and to pay fine in the sum of Rs.500/-, payable by each of them, and in default to suffer R.I. for one month each, by each of them.

(2.) Advocate Mr. B. B. Rajput who appears on record remained absent at final hearing of this appeal. It is the duty of Advocate accepting criminal brief to attend the case at final hearing. Negligence in this regard may amount to professional misconduct. Relevant observation of the Supreme Court in S. J. Chaudhary Vs. State (Delhi Administration), 1984 AIR(SC) 618 wherein it has been observed thus:

(3.) I have heard the learned A.P.P. for the Respondent-State. I have also perused the appeal memo and the paper book. Learned A.P.P. took me through the evidence on record. It appears that in all nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution. In order to prove its case pursuant to the charge framed against the appellants under section 306 as also under section 498-A read with section 34 of I.P.C..