( 1. ) IN this appeal preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of criminal Procedure, from jail, the appellant, a man in his late 20s has called in question the defensibility of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Betul in Sessions trial No. 100/1991, whereby the learned Trial Judge, after finding him guilty, sentenced him to suffer R. I. for life.

( 2. ) BEFORE we dwell upon the factual scenario of the case, we think it appropriate and condign to refer to a significant aspect. When this matter was listed and was called on many an occasion, the learned Counsel who was representing the appellant chose neither to appear nor to make a prayer for adjournment, under compelling circumstances, the case was passed over on certain dates in the presence of the Counsel for the State. Under these circumstances we did not think it appropriate to adjourn the matter when the list was almost getting exhausted. We enquired about the learned Counsel, who represented the appellant, yet we could not get any response. Under these circumstances we proceeded with the hearing of the appeal. In this context we may profitably refer to the three Judge Bench decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Bani Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 2439, wherein the Apex Court has extracted the view as under :-

"it is the duty of the appellant and his lawyer to remain present on the appointed day, time and place when the appeal is posted for hearing. This is the requirement of the Code on a plain reading of Sections 385-386 of the Code. The law does not enjoin that the Court shall adjourn the case if both the appellant and his lawyer are absent. If the Court does so as a matter of prudence or indulgence, it is a different matter, but it is not bound to adjourn the matter. It can dispose of the appeal after perusing the record and the judgment of the Trial Court. The plain language of the Sections 385-386 does not contemplate dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution simpliciter. On the contrary, the Code envisages disposal of the appeal on merits after perusal and scrutiny of the record. The law clearly expects the Appellate Court to dispose of the appeal on merits, not merely by perusing the reasoning of the Trial Court in the judgment, but by cross-checking the reasoning with the evidence on record with a view to satisfying itself that the reasoning and findings recorded by the Trial Court are consistent with the material on record.

"

( 3. ) IN view of this we have found it seemly to proceed with the case. The prosecution case, stated briefly, is that on 16-5-1991 at about 2 p. m. when the deceased Chironji accompanied by his wife Mangia was proceeding towards Bheempur Market, the appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") who had hidden himself behind the stack of woods of one Sohan singh came up and stabbed Chironji, his own father, as a result of which the deceased succumbed to the injuries. The helpless mother Mangia Bai (P. W. 2), shrieked in uncontrolled agony, which was instrumental for collection of a number of people. The accused after assault fled away. An FIR was lodged by the son-in-law Lamboo (P. W. 1), which set the Criminal Law in motion. It was alleged in the FIR that the accused had stolen a sum of Rs. 500/- from the house of Chironji and when a demand was made by the deceased to pay the same or at least a part of the same, the young man harbored the feelings of anger and thereafter on the date of incident, murdered the father. On the basis of the FIR Crime No. 70/1991 was instituted for an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (in short the IPC) and thereafter investigating agency commenced investigation, did panchnama of the dead body, examined the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal procedure, sent the dead body for post-mortem to the concerned Autopsy surgeon, seized the wearing appare