The court affirmed that testimony from injured witnesses is highly credible, and minor inconsistencies do not undermine the prosecution's case if corroborated by medical evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Jitendra Kumar Sinha, J.

1. Heard Shri Sandeep Kumar Dubey, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing on behalf of the appellants, Shri O.P. Dwivedi, learned AGA-Ist, for the State and perused the record.

2. By means of this criminal appeal, the appellants have challenged their conviction under Sections 302 , 302/34, 323/34 of IPC, whereas appellant Daulat Ram and Makrand alias Mukandi have been convicted under Sections 307 /34, 307 and 323 IPC. Both the appellants have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Sections 302 , 302/34 IPC and 5 years RI for the charge under Section 307 /34 and 307 IPC respectively and 6 months RI for the charge under Section 302 IPC. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

3. In Surya Baksh Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh , (2014) 14 SCC 222 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that it is always not necessary to adjourn the matter in case both appellants or his counsels/lawyers are absent and the Court can decide the appeal on merits after perusal of the record and the judgement of the trial Court. It has further been observed that if the case is decided on merits in the absence of the appellant, the higher court can remedy the situation. It has also been observed that appointment of Amicus Curiae is also on the discretion of the court. In paragraph 26 of the said judgement, it was held that it is always not essential for the High Court to appoint an Amicus Curiae, paragraphs 24 and 26 of the said judgement whereof are quoted as under:

“24. It seems to us that it is necessary for the Appellate Court which is confronted with the absence of the convict as well as his Counsel, to immediately proceed against the persons who stood surety at the time when the convict was granted bail, as this may lead to his discovery and production in Court. If even this exercise fails to locate and bring forth the convict, the Appellate Court is empowered to dismiss the appeal. We fully and respectfully concur with the recent elucidation of the law, profound yet perspicuous, in K.S. Panduranga v. State of Karnataka , (2013) 3 SCC 721 . After a comprehensive analysis of previous decisions our learned Brother had distilled the legal position into six propositions:-

“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 Appellant-accused 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.

25…..

26. Reverting back to the facts of the present case a perusal of the impugned order makes it abundantly evident that the High Court has considered the cas