SANTOSH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Appeal Nos. 2502 of 1998 and 2243 of 1999 arose from the same judgment dated 10.10.1998 passed by the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol in Session Trial No. 155/1996 (State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Santosh and three others) , whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol convicted accused Santosh under section 304-B of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and imposed a fine in the sum of 2,000.00, in default whereof appellant Santosh was directed to undergo further period of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months; and had acquitted the remaining accused persons namely-Shantibai, Baldeo and Ramnivas of the same charge under section 304-B of I.P.C. Since, both these criminal appeals arose from the same judgment, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) It may be noted here that respondent No. 1 Santosh was convicted under section 304-B of I.P.C. ; yet, the State, perhaps erroneously, filed Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 933/1999 for grant of leave to appeal under section 378 (3) of Crimial P.C. against all the accused persons including Santosh. It may further be noted that the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 8.9.1999, granted leave to appeal to the State only against respondent No. 1 (Santosh) and 2 (Shantibai) and refused to grant leave against respondents No. 3 (Baldeo) and 4 (Ramniwas). As already noted, respondent No. 1 Santosh has been acquitted, thus Criminal Appeal No. 2443/1999 against acquittal, shall be considered only as against respondent No. 2 Shantibai.

(3.) These two connected appeals came up for final hearing before this Court on 30.10.2014. Learned Counsel for the appellant Santosh in Criminal Appeal No. 2502/1998 did not appear. The appellant Santosh did not appear either. Likewise neither respondent Santibai not her Counsel in Criminal Appeal No. 2243 of 1999, appear. The Supreme Court in the case of K.S. Pandurang Vs. State of Karnataka (2013) 3 SCC 721 : 2013 (124) AIC 41 (SC) : 2013 (81) ACC 957, relying upon the laid down by Full Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Bani Singh Vs. State of U.P. (1998) 4 SCC 720, inter alia held that the Court is not bound to adjourn the matter if the appellant or his Counsel is absent. It can dispose of the appeal after perusing the record and judgment of the Trial Court. If the accused is in jail and cannot appear before Court on his own, it would be advisable to adjourn the case. If deemed appropriate, the Court may appoint a lawyer at the State expense to assist the appellant. The Supreme Court further held that it is not obligatory on the part of the Appellate Court in all circumstances, to engage amicus curie to argue on behalf of the appellant. It is not as if in the case of failure to appoint amicus curie, the judgment rendered by High Court would be absolutely unsustainable. In the case at hand, the appeals were filed in the year 1998 and 1999 respectively. Thus, they were more than 15 years old. These appeals were being listed for final hearing for past to months; yet, learned Counsel for the appellant in Cr. A. No. 2502/1998 failed to appear and argue, without any justifiable cause.