D.P.S. Chauhan, J.
1. It is a State appeal under Section 377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enhancement of sentence filed against the judgment and order dated 11-7-1988, passed in S.T. No. 9/88 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon wherein the accused was acquitted of the charge as levelled against him under Section 302, Indian Penal Code and instead he was convicted under Section 304 Part-II, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 3000/- only and in default of payment of fine, the accused was required to undergo simple imprisonment of one year.
2. The incident in question relating to the conviction of accused Kamla Shanker is dated 11th October, 1987 occurred in village Mohra. Accused Kamla Shankar was running a Bhatti (distillery) and on 11-10-1987 while Kanhaiya, the deceased was going on cycle from village Motipur to Mohara accused Kamla Shankar stopped him at his distillery and after stopping him offered liquor to him which he consumed along with other eatables. During this period there has been some altercation between the deceased and the accused, which infuriated the accused who brought a Lathi from his shop and gave beating to the deceased, as a result of which the deceased suffered injuries and he succumbed to the said injuries. The report of the incident was lodged on 11-10-1987 by Sarpanch Awasthidas at Police Station Dongargarh at 6.35 p.m. regarding the incident which took place at 4.00 p.m.
3. The prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses including Dr. Rajesh Sadani (P.W. 9), who conducted the post-mortem examination and found the following injuries on the person of the deceased vide report Ex.P-9 :-
'(1) One obliquely situated long contusion of 15' x 1' size cut over back region extending from lower portion of thorax (back) towards (Rt) side spine of Scapula (Rt), crossing midline at (D7) level.
(2) One contusion of 6' x 1' size cut horizontally at lower portion and back of thorax.
(3) One contusion of 4' x 2' size cut over (Lt) side of thoraco- abdominal junction.
(4) Two contusions of 5' x 1' size cut horizontally parallel to each other over (Lt) gluteal region, extending from gluteal left to tronchantric region.'
4. The appeal is in circumscribed limit as it is directed only against the sentence, regarding which the grievance is about inadequacy and in view of this it is not necessary for us to re-examine the whole of the evidence on merit. It would be worthwhile to notice the injuries sustained by the deceased for the purpose of sentence as the finding of the guilt has been recorded against the respondent-accused and from the record it does not appear that the respondent-accused preferred any appeal.
5. The injuries were four in number and these injuries resulted in internal injuries as well. In the internal examination it was found that left sided 8th and 9th ribs at midaxillary line were fractured. Left lung was also torn (as appears from the statement of the Doctor - P.W. 9). Spleen was ruptured and according to the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage (massive) due to rupture of inner surface of spleen, as whole peritoneal cavity was full with blood.
6. It may not go unnoticed here that the case was taken-up in the revised cause-list and it is 11.40 a.m. What to say about the counsel for the respondent-accused, even the. State counsel is not present in the Court who has got an obligation to remain present in the Court as he is appointed by the State Government to represent it.
7. The Court is not apprised as to why the counsel for the parties are not present. It is pointed out by the Bench Secretary that lawyers are on strike today as he read this thing in the newspaper. No reliance can be placed on the newspaper report. If the lawyers are on strike, then minimum required from them is that they should have apprised the Court in advance. Nobody apprised the Court even when the Court assembled. So far as abstaining from the work by the lawyers is concerned, this Court is not expressing any opinion though it comes within the meaning of misconduct under the Rules framed by the Bar Council of India under the Advocates Act, 1961. A lawyer has got dual duty; one duty to his client and the another duty to the Court and in discharge of his duties he cannot act in such callous manner. If he abstains from work of his client, he is not supposed to retain the fees but he is supposed to return the same. The phenomena of strike or boycott is foreign to the judicial system. Both these concepts are beyond the administration of justice system as the administration of justice is essential to the citizen as it relates to life and liberty both, and the justice cannot be denied to a person even for a single minute. The concept of the strike is of a labour class. The lawyers do not fall in that class. They are called 'Officers of the Court' and belong to the noble profession where they are called 'learned' and when they are called learned, certainly it means that they are possessed of learning but resortation to such method creates a doubt. So far as boycott of the Court or walkout are concerned, they are also foreign to the judicial administration system as there could be no boycott of any Court. Boycott could be in the other public bodies and walkout is a concept which relates to the proceedings of a meeting in which mutual deliberation takes place, such as the legislative bodies, club meeting and other bodies co-operate or non-co-operate.
8. In the case of Mahabir Prasad Singh v. Jacks Aviation Private Ltd., JT 1998 (7) SC 579, the Supreme Court in paragraph 2 of the judgment observed as :-
'Judicial function cannot and should not be permitted to be stonewalled by browbeating or bullying methodology, whether it is by litigants or by counsel. Judicial process must run its even course unbridled by any boycott call of the bar, or tactics of filibuster adopted by any member thereof. High Courts are duty bound to insulate judicial functionaries within their territory from being demoralised due to such onslaughts by giving full protection to them to discharge their duties without fear.'
Not only this, the Supreme Court in paragraph 16 of the said report further observed as :-
'No court is obliged to adjourn a cause because of the strike call given by any Association of Advocates or a decision to boycott the Courts either in general or any particular court. It is the solemn duty of every Court to proceed with the judicial business during Court hours. No court should yield to pressure tactics or boycott calls or any kind of browbeating. Both the Bench and the Bar are the two inextricable wings of the judicial forum and therefore the mutual respect is sine qua non for the efficient functioning of the solemn work carried on in courts of law. But that does not mean that any advocate or group of them can boycott the Courts or any particular court and ask the court to desist from discharging judicial functions. No advocate can ask the court to avoid a case on the ground that he does not want to appear in that Court.'
9. In the aforesaid circumstance, we consider it proper to indicate that the Court premises are not the private premises of any individual. They are the premises under the control. In the High Court, Hon'ble the Chief Justice and in the District Court, the District Judge are in the control of the premises. Ingress and egress in the Court cannot be stopped by the method of placing locks on the entry gates etc. or by threatening the litigants by placing locks on the entry gates etc. All these activities are beyond the scope of the members of the Bar who are in legal profession by statutory process and they are regulated, controlled and guided by the statute, statutory orders, directions and rules as well as the directions of the Courts as High Court under Section 34 of the Advocates Act, 1961 has got the ample power to regulate as to who are entitled to practice in the High Court and this power is given under the said statute by the Parliament in exercise of the power under Entry No. 78, List I of Schedule-VII, which is to the following effect:-
'78. Constitution and organisation (including vacations) of the High Courts except provisions as to officers and servants of High Courts; persons entitled to practice before the High Court.'
These are the observations made by this Court in the expectation that the members of the Bar would be enlightened and guided in conducting themselves in a proper and dignified manner in future.
10. We think at this stage it would be a sufficient indication to the learned members of the Bar that they should conduct themselves in a befitting and dignified manner so to enhance the dignity of the judicial administration system as well as the faith of the people in the system. No doubt, there could be grievances to the individual advocate or community but for that law has provided a forum and not only this if the grievance is of such nature which could be sorted out, then it is the duty of the concerned advocate or group of the advocates or association to have contacted the District Judge or to have contacted Hon'ble the Chief Justice, or the concerned Inspecting Judge or the Administrative Judge of the High Court, but they are not expected to take everything in their own hands and they are not expected to move in the direction so to paralyse the working of the system which amounts to interference in the course of justice.
11. Learned State Counsel was even otherwise under the obligation, but he is also not present. We wanted to refer this matter to the State Government for his removal from the panel, but since we are not proceeding to take action so we do not consider appropriate to write in this matter to the State Government as he would be losing his job and it would also be not fair to pass any such order without giving him opportunity of being heard. Apart from this, pardon we feel, is the greatest reformative weapon and we are using this power of reformative weapon by extending the guidance through this order.
12. So far as the question of sentence is concerned, we after considering the merit and after going through the record, find that the reasoning for imposing the fine is not at all satisfactory and under Section 304 Part-II, Indian Penal Code in such circumstances the imposition of the fine could not in any event said to be adequate punishment even having sympathy to the age of the accused at the time of the commission of the offence, which as per finding recorded by the trial Court was 19 years and over 19 years.
13. In view of above, the appeal is allowed maintaining the conviction of the respondent under Section 304 Part-II, Indian Penal Code as well as fine together with default clause imposed on him by the trial Court, but in addition to this he is imposed a sentence of imprisonment, for a period of two years rigorous imprisonment. The respondent-accused be taken into custody to undergo the sentence of imprisonment as is imposed on him.