KISHORE KAMLAKAR PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, IPC ) and sentence of RI for five years and fine of 500/-, or in default RI for three months, inflicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad in Sessions Case No.111 of 1993.

(2.) The appeal was dismissed by Judgment dated 15-11-2010 after perusing the record, as the learned counsel for the appellants stated that the appellants had taken away the brief. One of the appellants carried the matter to Hon ble Supreme Court. The Hon ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal by Order dated 15-4-2011 to the following effect:

(3.) Rehearing this appeal by spending precious judicial time on account of probably improper understanding of legal requirements in this behalf by me necessitates an apology and an explanation. In the era when law makers talk of judicial accountability and objective evaluation of performance of Judges, where one of the parameters suggested is number of cases in which a Judge was reversed, reversal of a Judgment, not because the superior Court took a different view, but because the superior Court found the Judge wanting in following the procedure is, if not a stigma, at least, disapproval of the manner in which the appeal was dealt with. Therefore, I feel that it would be appropriate to place on the record the reasons which prevailed upon me to hear the appeal in the first place without the assistance of an Advocate and which has resulted in loss of scarce judicial time, since there would be no other occasion for a Judge to speak otherwise than through a Judgment.