Sanjib Banerjee, J. - (1.) Two of the appellants are said to be dead. Photocopies of the death certificates pertaining to appellant no.1 Hazi Nijamuddin Sheikh and appellant no.3 Rousan Sheikh have been furnished and the same should be retained with the records. The appellant no.1 is said to have died on January 26, 2007 and the appellant no.3 on July 15, 2016. The State has not raised any objection in such regard. The appeal stands abated qua the appellant nos. 1 and 3; it survives only for the second appellant.
(2.) The surviving appellant seeks to take advantage of the appalling presentation and conduct of the case by the prosecution in the trial court to suggest that not even the death of the victim was proved and the order of conviction cannot be sustained. Indeed, the inquest report was taken on record by the trial court after the examination of the three convicted accused had been completed under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It did not dawn on the trial court to put the inquest report before the accused persons at a later stage. As a consequence, the inquest report cannot be looked into. There is a post-mortem report on record, but the autopsy surgeon was not examined; and, there does not appear to be any explanation in such regard. The appellant has, thus, contended that the opinion expressed in the post-mortem report cannot be relied on.
(3.) The incident took place on August 10, 1984 and the appeal has been languishing for more than two decades without the appellants taking any steps to prosecute the appeal. It has become a fashion to obtain bail at or immediately after the admission of an appeal against an order of conviction and then take no steps to have the appeal heard. This is one of many appeals that have appeared in the peremptory list via the warning list.;