NANKA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are pending since 1991. Appellant Mishrilal in Cr.A. No.122/1992 has beensentenced to undergo 7 years R.I. for offences under Section 394 read with Section 397 IPC and one year and 3 years R.I. for offence under Section 25 and Section 27 of Arms Act. Appellant Nanka and Maikulal in Cr.A. No.1036/1991 have been convicted to undergo 4 years R.I. for offence punishable under Section 394 IPC. Both the appeals were filed against the order of conviction passed by the District Judge, Damoh in Sessions Trial No.95/1990 on 28.10.1991.

(2.) AS far as the appellant Mishrilal in Cr.A. No.122/92 is concerned, it is seen that the maximum sentence imposed upon him is R.I. for 7 years. He is in custody and his bail application was rejected by this Court and therefore, now after a period of more than 24 years, he would have already undergone the entire sentence. As far as the merits of both the cases are concerned, the prosecution story is that on 6.6.90 P.W.1 Ladli Bai was coming back to her house from the market along with her son Bhura Singh P.W.2, when four persons came there, one of the person was carrying a Katta (a country made pistol), he snatched a silver chain from her neck and ran away and when her son Bhura tried to stop the person he fired from the Katta on Bhura but it did not hit Bhura. This person is said to be the present appellant Mishrilal who has been identified by the complainant P.W.1 Ladli Bai and her son Bhura P.W.2 before the Tahsildar and on the basis of seizure of Katta from him, he has been convicted for the offence as indicated herein above.

(3.) AS far as the other two accused persons Nanka and Maikulal in Cr.A. No.1036/1991 are concerned, they are only convicted for offence under Section 394 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment of four years. They are on bail since 28.1.1992 and records indicate that they are absconding since 2000 and have not appeared since then and Shri Manish Mishra, learned counsel appearing for these appellant does not represent these appellants and pleads now no instruction. However, these appellants are on bail and the appeal is of the year 1991. It is being continuously listed for final hearing since last more than two months and when the case is taken up for hearing none is appearing, that apart both these appellants have jumped the bail and are not appearing since 2000. In view of the above, considering the principles of law laid down in the case of K.S. Panduranga v. State of Karnataka, 2013 3 SCC 721 and the fact that now as per the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court it is not obligatory on the part of this Court in all circumstances to engage an amicus curie in a criminal case to argue on behalf of the accused and when the appellants accused are on bail, this Court can proceed to examine the record and decide the matter on merit taking note of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the Cr.A. No.1036/1991, accordingly, I proceed to decide the matter after examining the record and after hearing learned Government Advocate.