STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. GUTTHAL (BUTTHAL)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal No.741/1992 (State of M.P. Vs. Sudar and four others) had been preferred by the appellant-State against the acquittal of accused/respondents in S.T.No.130/89 by judgment dated 10.8.1991, for offence punishable under Sections 148, 302 in alternative 302 read with Section 149 of IPC. This Court vide order dated 2.5.2006 allowed the appeal of State of Madhya Pradesh and convicted accused Netraj Singh and Gutthal under Section 302 of IPC and judgment of their acquittal was set aside and they were sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. Accused/respondent Netraj Singh was directed to surrender before the C.J.M. Narsinghpur to undergo the remaining part of his sentence. It was observed that accused Gutthal is absconding and therefore, warrant of arrest was directed to be issued against him. Against the said order dated 2.5.2006 passed by this Court, Netraj Singh had preferred an appeal (Criminal Appeal No.1006/2006) before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has passed the following order :-

(2.) From perusal of order of this Court dated 14.1.2008, it reveals that accused/ respondent Gutthal was never served and the appeal was heard and decided against him vide order dated 2.5.2006, therefore name of Gutthal was separated from the array of the cause title and his appeal was registered as Cr. Appeal No.431/2008 and Registry of the Court was directed to issue bailable warrant of Rs.5,000/- against him returnable within six months for his appearance on the fixed date. On date of appearance, accused/respondent Gutthal was not appeared, but in report on the bailable warrant of accused/respondent Gutthal, it was mentioned that he is not in village since last 10-12 years and on the basis of that report, his appeal was registered separately as Cr.A.No.431/2008.

(3.) In view of the aforesaid facts of the matter, both these appeals being Cr.A.No.741/1992 and Cr.A. No.431/2008 are heard together by appointing amicus curiae in Criminal Appeal No.431/2008, and are being decided by this common judgment, as these appeals arise from same judgment and common questions are involved in the same.