ROHIT B. DEO, J.

1. The appellants seek to assail the judgment and order dated 6.7.2002 delivered by the learned 2nd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad in Sessions Trial No. 27/2000, by and under which the appellants are convicted for offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants are sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for two years for offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and simple imprisonment for five years for offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants are further directed to pay fine of Rs. 200/- and Rs. 300/- each respectively for offences punishable under Sections 498A and Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. None appears on behalf of the appellants even on second call. The appeal was on board on 22.8.2017 and was adjourned till today at the request of the Counsel for the appellants. I must record serious concern and displeasure at the casual and cavalier attitude and approach of the learned Counsel in seeking time on the last date of hearing and remaining absent today. Neither the appellants nor their Counsel have bothered to remain present nor is there any request on behalf of the appellants or their Counsel seeking adjournment, which request could have been made through any colleague in the event of a genuine difficulty in appearing before this Court today. It is with some anguish that this Court is impelled to record, that in old criminal appeals in which the challenge is to conviction and the accused are on bail, more often than not, neither the accused nor the counsel appear before the Court, for reasons not far to seek, I would appreciate if the Hon’ble President of the High Court Bar Association personally addresses the issue and ensures that such conduct of the Advocates does not derail or render ineffective, the justice disposition system. Let the registry bring this order to the notice of the Hon’ble President of the High Court Bar Association, Nagpur and file a compliance report within 48 hours.

3. In light of the non-co-operative attitude of the Counsel, I have no option but to decide the appeal on merits after scrutinizing the record, which I have done. I must record the able and extremely fair assistance of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri H.R. Dhumale, who in the true tradition of an officer of the Court, brought to the notice of this Court every material including material ostensibly adverse to the prosecution, to my notice.

4. The gist of the prosecution case is Archana, the daughter of the complainant Purushottam (PW-1) married accused 1 on 04.6.1998. Archana visited her parental place on the occasion of Akhadi and allegedly conveyed that the accused demanded Rs. 15,000/- and ill-treated and taunted her. The complainant states in the police report that he ignored the grievance in the interest of the marital peace. On 27.12.1998 the complainant received a message from a person from Tendoli, that Archana expired due to consumption of endrine and her body was at the Yavatmal hospital. The complainant rushed to the hospital and the accused informed him that Archana died due to consumption of poison. Her last rights were performed at 5:00 p.m. on 27.12.1998. The version of the prosecution is that on 31.12.1998 the complainant received a letter dated 25.12.1998 written by Archana in which Archana mentioned that if amount is not paid, she would be left with no option but to commit suicide. The letter speaks of injustice being done and the ill-treatment meted out. The prosecution contends, that in view of the receipt of the said letter, the complainant lodged a report on 13.1.1999. Pursuant to the said report dated 13.1.1999, offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered, investigation ensued and the charge-sheet was filed in the Court of