KUKAN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KUKAN (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 337-SB of 1988) was convicted and sentenced for having committed offences punishable under Sections 376, 342 and 506 IPC while Somwati (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 101-SB of 1988) was convicted and sentenced for having committed offences punishable under Sections 376 read with Sections 120-B IPC and 342 IPC by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 5.2.1988.

(2.) BEFORE taking up the facts for discussion, it may be mentioned that the appeal was filed by Kukan appellant in this Court on 26.8.1988 and said Kukan appellant was admitted to bail by this Court vide order dated 26.10.1988. On these dates, the counsel for the appellant had been appearing regularly. Thereafter the appeal came up for consideration on 26.2.2003. None had appeared for Kukan appellant. The case was then taken up on 16.7.2003. On that date also Mr. Alok Jain Advocate counsel for Somwati appellant had appeared. The same happened when the file was taken up on 30.7.2003, 13.8.2003 and 27.8.2003. It was brought to the notice of the Court that Mr. J.S. Dhillon counsel for Kukan appellant had expired. Notice was ordered to be issued to the appellant. Said Kukan appellant was served on 15.12.2003. Mr. D.S. Rawal Advocate appeared on behalf of Kukan appellant on 17.12.2003 for the first time but he absented on 5.5.2004. When the file was taken again, none appeared on behalf of Kukan appellant on 28.7.2004. None is present today when the file was taken up for arguments. Hence, this appeal is taken up for being decided on merits along with connected appeal in which arguments were advanced by Mr. Alok Jain Advocate, counsel for co-accused Somwati.

(3.) CHARGES were framed against the appellants for having committed offences punishable under Sections 376, 506, 342 read with Section 120-B IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.