DHANANJAY RAI Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein stands convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959, by judgment, dated 04/09/2009, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-IV, Buxar, in Sessions Trial No. 338 of 2006. By order, dated 09/09/2009, passed by the learned trial Court, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- has been imposed upon him for his conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code with a stipulation that in default of the payment of fine, he would be undergoing rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. For his conviction under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- and, in default thereof, the appellant has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months. No separate punishment has been imposed upon the appellant for his conviction under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. In terms of the order of the learned trial Court, all the sentences are to run concurrently.

(2.) The aforesaid judgment and order of the learned trial Court has been put to challenge in the present appeal, preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(3.) By order, dated 29/10/2009, this appeal was admitted for hearing and the lower Court records were called for. As regards the appellant's prayer for bail, it was observed by this Court by the said order that the prayer shall be considered after receipt of the lower Court records. On 04/02/2010, when the matter came to be taken up by this Court, Mr. Varun Kumar, learned Advocate of this Court, who had filed the present appeal on behalf of the appellant, namely, Dhananjay Rai @ Guddu Rai, informed this Court that the brief of the case had been taken back by his client and no instruction had been given to him to press the application for grant of bail during the pendency of the appeal. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the informant, on the other hand, informed this Court, on that day, that the appellant had absconded from the custody and that was the reason why the prayer for bail was not being pressed by the learned counsel representing the appellant.