RAM DAS Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.8.86 passed in ST No. 43/85 by Addl. Sessions Judge, Satna, wherein appellants No. 1 and 3 were found guilty of offence punishable u/s 394 IPC and were sentenced to three years R.I. together with fine of Rs. 500/ - and in default of fine, were required to undergo three months R.I.; and the appellant No. 2 Bhurasingh, having been found guilty for commission of offence punishable u/s 394/397 I.P.C. was sentenced to seven years R.I. together with fine of Rs. 500/ - in default whereof, he was required to undergo three months R.I. In the judgment, in regard to Bhura Singh, it appears to have been wrongly mentioned that he has been convicted under Section 394 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code as both the sections required separate punishment. However, it is only a wrong description and is not a material error.

(2.) THE case was heard at length on 26.9.96 and as prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant, the case was marked as part heard and was adjourned as prayed by the learned counsel Shri S.C. Datt as he wanted to place some authority before this Court on the interpretation of the word "causes" as used in Section 397 of the Penal Code, as the submission was that there should be intention to cause such hurt, i.e. the act should be voluntarily and not involuntarily. Time was granted and the case was posted again and again, on prayer being made. The case is posted today. Again today Shri Y. K. Gupta made a mention that the case may not be taken up. But, since the adjournment has been granted six times earlier, it is not fair with the Court to seek adjournment in a part heard case in such manner. The prayer is therefore refused.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant made two fold submissions.