ORDER :

In Seneca's Medea (4 B.C.-A.D. 65), it is said "A Judge is unjust who hears but one side of a case, even though he decides justly." With this preface, let us deal with the issue raised in this appeal.

1. The appellants (27 persons) were tried on the charge of having murdered Rajegowda and causing injuries to several other persons. The trial court had passed on order of acquittal, acquitting all the 27 accused persons on the ground that the prosecution has failed to establish any of the charges against the accused.

2. The impugned judgment holds the appellants guilty of committing the offence punishable under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (the 'IPC' for short) as well as for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 148, 324 r/w Section 149, 448 and 427 r/w Section 149 of the 'IPC' and each of them is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and they are not awarded separate sentence for other minor offences.

3. We do not find it necessary to notice minutely the factual details as the same have been noted in the impugned judgment. The gist of the prosecution case, as noticed in the impugned 2 judgment, is as follows : On 4.7.1987, at about 7 am near the Hithalu of one Kalegowda PW-17, situate by the side of a road leading from Doddahalli to Doddahalli Shandy Maidan, all these respondents/appellants formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, with the common object of committing the murder of one Rajegowda and they did infact commit the offence of rioting and at that time, they were also armed with deadly weapons like clubs, sickles and stones and in prosecution of the common object of such unlawful assembly, one of the members of such unlawful assembly viz. the appellant No.1 committed the murder of the said Rajegowda and the appellants A2 to A27 caused simple injuries to PW-1 Cheluvegowda, PW-5 Annaji Gowda, PW-6 Marigowda, PW-9 Ramu, PW-12 Daddegowda, PW-13 Rajegowda and PW- 15 Puttaswamy Gowda with deadly weapons and that further, they proceeded to the house of PW-9 and after trespassing into the house of PW-9 in the village, caused damaged to the door of his house, causing wrongful loss to pw-9 to an extent of Rs. 50/- and also caused simple injuries. With these charges, the respondents were put on trial before the Trial Court.

4. Upon being charged of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 148, 324, 302 r/w 149, 448, 327 r/w 149 of the 'IPC', the appellants had claimed trail.

5. In order to substantiate its case against the appellants/accused, the prosecution had examined at the trial PWs-1 to 21 and placed on record exs. P-1 to P-17, and the defence examined DW-1.

6. When confronted with the incriminating evidence, the stand of the appellants/accused was of bald denial. The trial concluded with the acquittal of the appellants.

7. Aggrieved by the judgment and order so passed by the trial Judge, the State moved the High Court by filing Criminal Appeal no. 777/1996. After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the High Court found it fit to grant leave to appeal and admitted the appeal on 19.09.1996. Further, the High Court issued non-bailable warrants against the appellants herein, and the same was duly executed and the appellants were granted bail by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hassan, in terms of Section 390 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code" for short).

8. After preparation of paper books, the appeal was listed before the Court on 30.01.2001 for appointment of learned counsel for the respondents/accused in the appeal, since they were unrepresented. The High Court thought it fit to appoint one Smt. Pushpakantha, learned counsel, to appear on their behalf as amicus curiae vide order dated 31.01.2001. The order sheet maintained by the High Court suggests that the paper book was notified on 08.02.2001. Thereafter, the matter was posted before the Court on 12.10.2001 for hearing. Since the amicus-curiae appointed earlier was not present on that day, before beginning the h