KUJRI JONKO AND SIX ORS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE order dated 16.2.2001 is recalled. The appeal is restored to its original position.

(2.) WE are faced with a very piquant and strange predicament in this appeal. The appellant No. 2, Bagun Jonko is cited as accused No. 3 in the judgment of the learned trial Court. The suggestion is that Bagun Jonko actually died during the pendency of the trial itself. The further suggestion is that his son, Dongo Jonko, for some unexplained reasons, substituted himself for the father and started attending trial proceedings in his name and on conviction, is serving the sentence in his fathers name as his substitute and on his behalf. This is unknown to the criminal jurisprudence. In the annals of criminal jurisprudence, there is nothing called or known as a vicarious liability or a representative liability. A criminal is a criminal and he cannot pass on his responsibility to anyone also, including his son. If, therefore, the offence was committed by the father. Bagun Jonko, and if the son is serving the sentence, the son (Dongo Jonko) has to be released from the captivity immediately and forthwith. That alone is the demand and mandate of law.

(3.) LET the names of the learned counsel for the parties appear in the cause list on the next date.