GUJJAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) If one goes year-wise, the appeal at hand, undoubtedly gives an impression that its disposal is delayed. Therefore, it calls for depicting the main reasons for it. Record reveals that when it was taken up by the Bench for its final disposal on its turn, Mr. M. A. Goni, Sr. Advocate, appearing for the appellant projected his difficulty to defend him as he had joined the office of Advocate General as Sr. Addl. Advocate General. Thereafter, the appellant went unrepresented for some period. It so happened that thereafter he was released by the jail authorities on 26-1-1997 on the strength of the order passed by the Government on the eve of Republic Day vide Government SRO No. 45 dated 25-1-1997. He was, however, directed to execute bail bonds to ensure his appearance till disposal of the appeal. Ultimately, vide order dated 2-9-2002, the main appeal came to be dismissed by a coordinate Bench solely on the ground that the appellant had lost interest in prosecuting the appeal after being released from jail. Confirmation No. 25/1990 sent by the learned trial Court under Section 374, Cr. P.C. (State Code) for confirmation of sentence, was, thus, accepted. The appellant after the lapse of eight years moved an application bearing APPCR No. 19/2010 seeking recalling of the said order and the same was recalled by the Bench vide detailed order dated 6-7-2010 observing that earlier dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution, without being appreciated on merits had caused miscarriage of justice. The appellant was a govt. employee in P.H.E. department of J&K State. This is how, this appeal before us, once again for its disposal on merits.

(2.) Ch. Vidya Sagar, Advocate, appears for the appellant and Mr. R. S. Jamwal, learned Dy. AG represents the State. The trial Court record is also tagged with the main file.

(3.) One Teja Singh R/o village Tanda had married twice. His first wife had died before his death and he married for the second time with Mst. Indro Devi (P.W.). Daughter from first wife of Teja Singh had married to the appellant. After death of Teja Singh, his daughter claimed exclusive succession, whereas Mst. Indro also claimed her share as widow of Teja Singh. Mst. Indro lost legal battle as she was held not legally wedded to Teja Singh and ultimately succession was decided in favour of wife of the appellant. However, Mst. Indro was in occupation of the house of Teja Singh and also in possession of four kanals of land where she cultivated wheat crop. Occurrence has taken place in this very land.