BHAGIRATH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred under Section 374 (2) of Cr. P. C. 1973 challenging the judgment dated 14/02/96 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Tikamgarh in S. T. No. 104/93, whereby the appellant Bhagirath has been convicted for offence U/s 376 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 7 years R. I. with fine of Rs. 2000/- and in lieu of fine R. I. for three months.

(2.) Law clearly expects the appellate Court to dispose of the appeal on merits, not merely by perusing the reasoning of the trial Court in the judgment but by cross-checking the reasoning of the evidence on record. It is the duty of the appellant and his lawyer to remain present on the appointed day, time and place, when the appeal is posted for hearing. This is the requirement of the Code of Criminal Procedure on a plain reading of sections 385-386 of Cr.P.C.

(3.) The law does not enjoin that the Court shall adjourn the case if both the appellant and his lawyer are absent. In the case of Bani Singh and Others Vs. State of U.P., 1996 AIR(SC) 2439, the Apex Court while dealing with similar situation held that when appellant and his lawyer are absent on the appointed day for hearing, the Court is not bound to adjourn the case, but should dispose of the appeal on merits. The dismissal of appeal simpliciter for nonprosecution is not contemplated U/s 386 of Cr. P. C.