BALIRAM MADHUKAR DALVI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed from jail by a person who was made to face the trial without assistance of any lawyer or any sort of legal aid before the Sessions court, in spite of full knowledge about the same to the concerned Presiding Officer of the Sessions Court as well as the learned prosecutor before the Sessions court. The appellant has been convicted under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of rs. 2. 000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months.

(2.) THE appellant was sought to be charged under sections 302, 323, 120-B read with section 34 of Indian Penal code, on the ground that he along with three others on 10th February, 1997 at about 5 p. m. within the limits of village mhasewadi, taluka Manegaon, district Raigad, in furtherance of common intention committed murder by intentionally or knowingly causing death of one shankar Babu Shelar and voluntarily causing hurt to Chandana Chandrakant shelar. The charge in that regard was framed by Shri S. D. Mohod, then Sessions judge at Raigad-Alibag in Sessions Case no. 96 of 1997 on 14th February, 1998. The appellant was in fact arrested on 13th February, 1997 itself. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. Recording of evidence commenced on 20th april, 1998. The prosecution examined 9 witnesses and the recording of last witness was concluded on 17th July, 1998, while same judicial officer was presiding over the Sessions Court raigad all throughout. By judgment dated 15th february, 1999, the same Sessions Judge acquitted other three accused, while convicting the appellant herein under section 302 of Indian Penal Code.

(3.) THE appellant preferred appeal through Jail. When the same came up for hearing on admission 24th August, 2007, as the appellant was not represented by the advocate, the registry was directed to appoint an advocate from the panel of advocates prepared for legal aid service. Accordingly Shri Raj an Salvi advocate came to be appointed as advocate for the appellant from the legal aid panel. The matter was thereafter fixed for admission on 5th October, 2007. Accordingly, when the matter came up for hearing on 5th October, 2007, none appeared for the appellant. Since the record disclosed that shri Rajan Salvi, advocate, was appointed and as he had failed to appear for the appellant, the office was directed to appoint Kum. Rebeca Gonsalves to represent the appellant. Matter was then adjourned to 19th October, 2007.