1999 Supp 4 SCR 22 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by THOMAS, J. Leave granted.
On 3.8.1998, the appeal stood listed before a Single Judge of the High Court.
speaking for the Bench, has stated the legal position thus The law clearly expects the appellate companyrt to dispose of the appeal on merits, number merely by perusing the reasoning of the trial companyrt 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 companyrt are companysistent with the material on record.
A.M. Ahmadi, CJ.,
Appellants have therefore companye up to this Court aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the High Court.
It appears that the High Court had suspended the sentence passed on the appellants pending disposal of the appeal.
The earlier view of a two Judge Bench of this Court in Ram Naresh Yadav and Ors, v. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 1500, that in such a situation the Court companyld only dismiss the appeal for default, has been held erroneous by a three Judge Bench of this Court in Bant Singh and Ors, v. Slate of U.P., 1996 4 SCC 720.
But the companynsel engaged by the appellants did number turn up and hence learned Single Judge proceeded to hear the companynsel for the State alone and then dismissed the appeal on merits.
When the companynsel engaged by the appellants in a criminal appeal does riot turn up there is numberobligation for the companyrt of appeal to wait for him or even to adjourn the case awaiting his presence.
What followed was almost like a pitch battle in which both sides suffered injuries and finally the dacoits fled from the scene leaving out one among them who was captured by the victims.
Thereupon the marauders opened fire.
The companymotion ensued attracted a number of persons of the locality who gathered up and resisted the onslaughts made by the dacoits.
All of them jointly filed an appeal before the High Court of Patna in August 1986.
