ANGAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant- accused, as he has been convicted by the Sessions Judge, Deoghar vide order dated 21st of March, 1997 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- as well as punished under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code to be read with Section 34 thereof and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Both these offences have been committed by the appellant-accused and the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. The appellant-accused has also convicted for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, but, no separate sentence has been awarded to him. Against this order of conviction and sentence, passed by the trial court in Sessions Trial No. 185 of 1995, the present appeal has been preferred.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused submitted that the appellant- accused is absconding since 7th December, 1998 from jail and even on today, he is absconding.

(3.) We have heard Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, who has presented before this Court a report of Superintendent of Jail, Jamui dated 8th September, 2009 that the appellant-accused has been absconding since 7th December, 1998 along with some other accused convicted in some other sessions cases. Thus, appellant- accused is absconding as on today. Learned A.P.P. has drawn our attention of Rule 141 of High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001 as well as towards the decision rendered by the Division Bench of Hon'ble Patna High Court decided in the case of Daya Shankar Singh and another v. State of Bihar, as reported in 2005 Cri LJ 482, especially paragraph Nos. 10, 23 and 24 as well as a decision rendered by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mahendra Bhogilal Tadvi v. State of Gujarat, as reported in 2009 Cri LJ 1486, and submitted that as the appellant-accused has no faith in Justice Delivery System and there is breach of fundamental duties by the appellant-accused under Article 51-A and there is breach of Rule-141 of High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001, this appeal may be dismissed only on the ground that the appellant-accused is absconding and as and when he surrenders or is arrested, he can prefer an application for revival of the Criminal Appeal, if it is not unreasonably and unexcessively delayed.