- (1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 31.7.2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Sessions Case No. 117/2003 whereby the accused appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under: Section 302/120B IPC: Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/ - in default of payment of fine to undergo six month S.I. Section 201 IPC: Seven years R.I and fine of Rs. 500/ - in default of payment of fine to undergo six months S.I. each. (All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.) At the same time, Gopal Singh and Meera Devi were acquitted for the offence under Section 302/120 -B IPC. Counsel for appellants Mukesh and Sanjay Kumar are present and it has been brought to the notice of this Court that appellant Sunil Kumar is absconding and none appeared even on his behalf. However, in K.S. Panduranga Vs. State of Karnataka, 2013 3 SCC 721 wherein while relying on the earlier judgment in Bani Singh Vs. State of U.P., 1996 4 SCC 720, the Apex Court has explained that there could be number of eventualities, when the case can be decided after perusal of the record. Principles laid in the above judgment are as under: "19. From the aforesaid decision, the principles that can be culled out are: 19.1. That the High Court cannot dismiss an appeal for non -prosecution simpliciter without examining the merits; 19.2. That the court is not bound to adjourn the matter if both the Appellant or his counsel/lawyer are absent; 19.3. That the court may, as a matter of prudence or indulgence, adjourn the matter but it is not bound to do so; 19.4. That it can dispose of the appeal after perusing the record and judgment of the trial court; 19.5. That if the accused is in jail and cannot, on his own, come to court, it would be advisable to adjourn the case and fix another date to facilitate the appearance of the accused -Appellant if his lawyer is not present, and if the lawyer is absent and the court deems it appropriate to appoint a lawyer at the State expense to assist it, nothing in law would preclude the court from doing so; and 19.6. That if the case is decided on merits in the absence of the Appellant, the higher court can remedy the situation."
(2.) HENCE in view of the above that the appeal can be disposed of after perusing the record and judgment of the trial court if the counsel is not present and as per clause 19.2 and 19.4 of the above judgment, the Court is not bound to adjourn the matter in the absence of appellant or his counsel and can dispose of the appeal after perusing the record and judgment of the trial court, we are inclined to dispose of the appeal of appellant Sunil Kumar also along with appeal of Mukesh and Sanjay Kumar.
(3.) THE brief facts of the case are that PW/18 Prahlad Singh who was Station House Officer, Police Station Chandwaji lodged a written report (Ex.P/24) on 9.9.2003 at 10.30 PM with the contention that on that day at 7.20 PM he along with Mahesh Chand, Constable No. 86 and Bhawani Singh Driver No. 1617 in Government jeep went on petrolling of National Highway NHW -08. At 9.30 P.M. a QST was received that on Chitanu Turn, Tata Sumo No. DL -3C -1786 or DL -3C -1876 caused accident of one unknown lady. Information was sent to Police Station to send one officer and two constables. Then Jeevan Singh, S.I. along with Subash Chand, F.C. No. 1280 and Dasrath Singh F.C. No.1314 from the Police Station reached at Chitanu Turn but on enquiry, no information was found about the accident. Thereafter Police party went towards Jaipur and when they reached near Jojoba Farm, a dead body of unknown lady was found on road. The blood was scattered around the dead body, soil was poured on blood and marks of tyre along with blood were found there. On suspicion the dead body was examined in the light of torch, it was found that dead body was having injuries by sharp edged weapon on neck and right hand. On search, one white colour shirt was found there. Shirt was also blood stained and two paper slips were found in the pocket of shirt of Hotel Paradise Continental, 13, Kanti Nagar, Bani Park, Jaipur. On mobile phone, information was gathered from Hotel and it was informed that one lady, three persons and one child all had checked out of the hotel in Tata Sumo No. DL 3 CH 1786 and they intended to go to Delhi. On inspection of site and other circumstances, the SHO was of the opinion that offence under Section 302/201 IPC was committed on which written report (Ex.P/24) was lodged and the control room was informed. Police came into motion and at nakabandi, one Tata Sumo No. DL 3 CH 1786 was apprehended in Police Station Vishwakarma in which appellants Sunil Kumar and Sanjay and one child were found. The child was of Sanjay Kumar. Mukesh, Sunil Kumar and Sanjay Kumar all the three appellants were arrested. Tata Sumo No. DL -3 CH -1786 was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P/18). Sanjay was wearing blood stained shirt. Shirt and banyan were seized. Other recoveries were also made at the disclosure and instance of appellants and after conclusion of investigation charge -sheet was filed against the appellants. The case was committed and tried by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.1, Jaipur District, Jaipur. The charges were framed against the appellants for the offence under Section 302, 120 -B and 201 IPC. The said charges were denied by the accused and they claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PW/1 Mahesh Kumar, PW/2 Surgyan Chand, PW/3 Raju, PW/4 Arjun Singh, PW/5 Mali Ram, PW/6 Sanjay Tiwari, PW/7 Jai Prakash, PW/8 Smt. Laxmi, PW/9 Navdeep, PW/10 Smt. Shakuntala, PW/11 Kailash, PW/12 Manoj Singh, PW/13 Babulal, PW/14 Dr. Munshi Lal, PW/15 Vimal Kumar, PW/16 Sriram, PW/17 Jitendra Kumar Gupta, PW/18 Prahlad Singh, PW/19 Ramchandra, PW/20 Daya Ram and PW/21 Sunil Singh to support its case. Prosecution has also relied upon documents Ex.P/1 to P/38.;