ARSHAD AHMED KHAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRASED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this appeal, the appellant seeks to set aside the judgment dated 7th December, 1994 rendered by the learned first Addl. Sessions Judge, West Nimar barwani in Sessions Trial No. 73/91, thereby convicting the appellants under Section 307 i PC, and sentencing him to undergo R. I. for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer imprisonment for three months.

(2.) THIS appeal was listed in weekly as well as daily cause lists, but none appeared for the appellant. On 15. 10. 07, none had appeared on behalf of the appellant, therefore, the appeal was listed on 02. 01. 08. On this date also, none appeared, but the record shows that the appellant appeared in the office and marked his presence and also he was given the date for appearance as 28. 04. 08. On 07. 02. 08, 08. 02. 04, 14. 02. 08, 15. 02. 08, 22. 02. 08, 05. 03. 08 and 11. 03. 08, none had appeared for and on behalf of the appellant. The appellant is not present even today. Therefore, in view of the Supreme court judgments rendered in the cases of benisingh v. State of U. P. (AIR 1996 SC 2439 : 1996 Cri LJ 3491, Kishansingh v. State of u. P. (1996) 9 SCC 372 and Dharampal and others v. State of U. P. Judgment Today 2008 (Vol. I) SC 172 : 2008 Cri LJ 1016 the appeal is heard finally on merit. In the case of banesingh (supra), the Supreme Court, in para 16 has observed as under:-

(3.) ACCORDING to the prosecution case on 08. 01. 91, the complainant Nanuram along with his friends Chandika Pratap (PW-2) and abhay Kumar (PW-3) was going in the evening at 4. 30 P. M. from Julvaniya road towards Bhilatkheda. At that moment, the appellant reached to them and abused chandika Pratap in the name of his mother and while delivering threats to finish him, took out a knife from his pocket and struck two knife-blows causing injuries in his abdomen. Anil Kumar intervened and separated them. In spite of this intervention, the appellant dealt third blow causing injury on the head of Chandika Pratap. During the course of rescuing, Anil Kumar also sustained injuries by knife; The appellant fled away from the place of occurrence with knife. Nanuram (PW-1) lodged the report Ex. P/1 on the same day at 5. 00 P. M. Police stepped into investigation and prepared the spot map. The appellant was nabbed on 09. 01. 91 and on his disclosure statement, knife was seized. After completion of investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforementioned offence. It is worth while to mention here that the charge-sheet was filed against Anil also but he has been discharged by the learned trial Court at the stage of framing of charge by order dated 22. 08. 91.