BHULAU Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant feels aggrieved by his conviction under section 304 (ii) I.P.C. and sentence of 7 years R1 by judgment dated 29.1.1986 passed by Shri B. S. Gupta. Additional Sessions Judge. Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 117/84 and challenges the legal validity thereof in this appeal u/s 374 (2) Cr. P. C.

(2.) THE appellant is alleged to have given sabbal blow on the head of Kaliram. S/o Sarju Yadav on 19.11.83 blow and thereby caused his death and committed the aforesaid offence. Prosecution alleges that the agricultural Held on which the incident has taken place belongs to Jamunbai (P.W. 11), who had given the same of adhivatia to Rajaram (P. W. 5). Rajaram had sown paddy crop on the said (sic) appellant is the real brother of Jamunbai and claimed right over the said laud. On 19.11.1983 the appellant cut the standing crop and was getting ready to transport the same to his house, when the deceased Kaliram. in the company of other witnesses, reached the (sic) and objected to culling and transporting the crop. The deceased claimed to he the mukhtiar or the holder of power of attorney of Jamunbai. On this the appellant, who has tabbal, - a shars edged axe like instrument generally used for culling and chopping with him (sic) the deceased on his head by the same, causing the fatal injury. The deceased started bleeding and fell on the ground. The appellant ant others then ran away. The deceased was taken to the police Station, where report of the incident was lodged by Rajaram (P. W. 5). as per Ex./7. The deceased was first sent to the hospital at Pandariya and thereafter to Bilaspur where he died on 20.11.1983 at about 5.00 A. M. Dr. T D. Tiwari (P. W. 16) had first examined, the deceased and gave his report (Ex. P -35). Dr. K. B. Kshetrapal (P.W. 15) took X -Ray of the skull of the deceased and found frontal and parietal hone fractured. His report is Ex. P/31. Dr. Patle (P. W. 18) performed autopsy of the dead -body and gave his report (Ex. P -IA) and opined that the death was due to injury on the head. After completion of investigation, the appellant was charged u/s 302 IPC and sent for trail to the learned A. S. J.

(3.) THIS appeal is pending in this Court since 31.1.1986. Though it is ripe for hearing since 30.5.86. it could not be heard because of long list. It was directed to be listed for final hearing in the week commencing from 1.7.1993 and yet could not be heard so far. On 2.9.1993 when it was listed and came up for hearing, learned counsel for appellant did not appear and was reported to be on strike. The hearing was, therefore, adjourned. On 8.10.1993 when it was again listed for hearing no one appeared for the appellant. It is true that the appellant has been enlarged on bail pending decision of this appeal, but it does not mean that it should never be heard. Why is the appellant unrepresented in this Court He has engaged an advocate who has undertaken to appear and plead for him. The Advocate accepting the brief and assignment is under a legal and moral obligation to look after his interests in this court. How is it that inspite of fixing final hearing of this case and publishing the same in the Court's cause list in accordance with law, the Advocate, who has undertaken to represent the appellant is absent ? There is no communication either from the learned counsel or from the Bar Association to this Court in this behalf and hence this Court cannot, with any amount of authenticity state the reason of non -appearance of the learned counsel. Local newspaper reports, however, inform that a delegation of High Court Bar Association, Jablapur had met the Chief Justice of India and the State Law Minister at New Delhi on 13th & 14th August, 1993 and submitted a representation to them, claiming transfer of the Chief Justice of this Court to some other State. Newspapers also report that these dignitaries had expressed some legal difficulty in doing anything in the matter. Thereafter, in a meeting of Association held on 18.8.1993, the Bar Members decided to 'strike' work for a week to press their demand of transfer of the present Chief Justice. As a consequence of this decision, the advocate struck work from 19.8.93. the one and the only demand of the Bar Association so far was the transfer of the Chief Justice and not of any other Judge of this Court. In fact, the demand for transfer of the Chief Justice was mainly due to transfer of 3 Hon'ble Judges of this Court from one Bench to another, which the Bar has condemned in its meeting on 18.8.1993.