ARUN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall also dispose of Criminal Revision No. 30/85. The two revisions have been preferred by the two accused against an order dated 30 -12 -84 passed in S. T. No. 134/84 whereby, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 439 (2) Cr. P. C., the liberty of bail extended earlier to the accused applicants, has been ordered to be recalled. Criminal Revision No. 4/85 is by Arun Kumar Dixit and Criminal Revision No. 30/85 is by Suresh. I have heard the learned Counsel Sarvashri J.P. Gupta and P.N. Sharma, Advocates for the two applicants as also Shri R. C. Pandey, Govt. Advocate, for the State.

(2.) A little detailed statement as to factual back -drop appears not only apposite but a must. On 29 -7 -83, Virendrasingh, resident of Ramkala Nagar, Murar locality of the city of Gwalior, had a casual verbal exchange with one of the accused at about 4 p.m. At about 11 p. m. when Virendrasingh was sitting outside his house, Arun Dixit armed with a sword and Suresh armed with a chain, reached him. Without a word Arun Dixit dealt a single blow by sword on the head of Virendrasingh and Suresh dealt a blow by chain. Virendrasingh fell down unconscious. Arun Dixit dealt a second blow by the sword but on Shantidevi, wife of Virendrasingh, landing on her left hand. Within 15 minutes of the incident, F. I. R. was lodged at the nearby Police Station. Virendrasingh was rushed to the hospital only to be declared dead on account of sword injury on the head, which had caused syncope and haemorrhage. Shantidevi was found to have suffered a fracture of the humerus shaft. On completion of investigation, a challan was filed implicating the accused applicants under Ss. 302/324/34 I.P.C. On 14 -12 -83, accused Arun Kumar was produced before the Court, but accused Suresh could not be produced, as he was absconding. Proceedings under Section 299 Cr. P.C. were taken. However, he was apprehended later on and a supplementary charge -sheet was drawn up on 15 -1 -84 and filed in the Court. It is not disputed that both the accused -applicants were enlarged on bail by the Sessions Judge, Gwalior.

(3.) WHAT transpired further on 20 -12 -84 is to be gathered from the statement of facts recorded in the order of the trial Court. The case was initially taken up at 11 -30 a.m. At that time accused Suresh Sharma was personally present in the Court, but his counsel requested the case to be taken up at 3 p.m. When the case was again taken up, accused Suresh Sharma was also absent and an application was moved through his counsel stating that the accused Suresh Sharma had developed fever during Court hours and, therefore, had left the Court. The fact remains that when the case was called for hearing ultimately, both the accused applicants were absent, though the witnesses were present.