DHANRAJ AND ORS Vs. STATE AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are directed against the common judgement dated 28.11.2003 by which the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.4, Jhalawar in appeal no.169/2003 while acquitting the accused-respondent Girraj, convicted the accused-appellant Dhanraj. The jail appeal no.702/06 was filed by accused-appellant Dhanpal against his conviction, whereas the appeal no.703/2006 was filed by the State against the acquittal of the accused Girraj.

(2.) At the outset, Shri Ali Mohd. Khan, learned counsel for the accused-respondent no.2-Girraj in State-appeal no.703/2006 has submitted that the accused-respondent no.2-Girraj was summoned by bailable warrants of Rs.25,000. Even though the warrant was executed and served upon him, but he did not appear before this Court on the appointed date. Learned counsel submitted that he has put in appearance on his behalf. He served a notice on Girraj by registered A/D post calling upon him to appear before this Court on 29.7.2013, the date fixed by the Court and also intimated that in the event of his failure, the Court might issue non-bailable warrants for procuring his presence. The letter has been sent by him, has been returned with the remark of the postman that on his visiting the address of the respondent no.2-Girraj, it transpired that he has died. Learned counsel has produced on record of this Court the original envelope, which was sent by registered A.D. to Girraj S/o Morlal, B/c Meena, R/o Nayagao, Ratanpura, P.S. Bakani, District Jhalawar (Rajasthan). Endorsement to the above effect is made on the envelope in red ink on 27.7.2013. It is therefore prayed that the State appeal against the acquittal of respondent no.2-Girraj is liable to be dismissed as having abated.

(3.) Since the said report has been furnished by the postman in due discharge of his duties, a presumption has to be raised about its correctness.