ZABARSINGH PILYA BHILALA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant seeks to assail the judgment and order dated 05-5-2004, delivered by the IIIrd Ad hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Achalpur in Sessions Trial 80/1997, by and under which the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the "accused") is convicted for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years, five years and seven years respectively for the aforesaid offences in addition to payment of fine of Rs.500/- for each offence.

(2.) The accused faced trial alongwith Anarsingh Jagan More, Bhumsingh Chhotu Masniya and Mansingh Shekdya Waskalya. Anarsingh More absconded and at the instance of the other accused, the trial was separated. The other two accused Bhumsingh and Mansingh are convicted for offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code.

(3.) The record reveals that the learned Counsel appointed to represent the accused has not collected the paper-book. The learned Counsel appointed to represent the accused is absent when the appeal is called out for hearing. Since the learned Counsel has not even collected the paper-book, it is obvious that this Court is not likely to have the benefit of the assistance of the learned Counsel appointed to represent the accused. Consistent with the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case in Bani Singh and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1996 4 SCC 720, I intend to decide the appeal on merits.