GOBAL KISKU Vs. THE STATE OF W.B.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a Sessions Trial held before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 2nd Court, Midnapore, while the appellant Laba Hembram was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC and under Section 364 IPC, the appellant Gobal Kisku was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC. They preferred two separate appeals challenging the order of conviction and sentence.

(2.) When these appeals are taken up for hearing, the learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Nandalal Nayak appearing on behalf of the appellant in connection with CRA No. 609/2004, once again renews his prayer for adjournment on the ground that he needs the service of a Senior lawyer and till this date he could not have been able to arrange for the same. Similar prayer was also made yesterday and having regard to the facts that the appeals are of the year 2004 and the same are running in the list for a considerable period (nearly 1-2 months) and the appellant Laba Hembram is in jail, this court is not inclined to allow his prayer. The prayer for adjournment stands rejected. None however appears on behalf of the appellant Gobal Kisku in CRA No. 572 of 2004.

(3.) However, the learned Junior Public Prosecutor appears on behalf of the State, in both the appeals and makes his submissions.