High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:133691-DB 1 Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2697 of 1981 Appellant :- Amar Pal Singh And Others Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- S.S.Tewari,K.K.Srivastava,Punit Bhadauria,S P Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- Dga,A.N.Mulla,M.P.Srivastava,Sanjay Kumar Yadav Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J. 1. Heard Sri Punit Bhadauria, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Kailash Prakash Pathak, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party. 2. This appeal under Section 374(2), Cr.P.C. arises from the judgment and order dated 30.10.1981 in Session Trial No.219 of 1980 (State vs. Amar Pal Singh, Ram Kumar Singh and Vishram Singh) passed by the Session Judge, Etawah convicting the accused appellant Nos.1 and 3 Amar Pal Singh and Vishram Singh for the offences under Section 302/34 and 307/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and five (5) years’ R.I. respectively and also convicting the appellant No.2 Ram Kumar Singh under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and under Section 307 to five (5) years’ R.I. Against the aforesaid judgment and order, all the three convicted persons have filed the present appeal. During pendency of appeal, the accused appellant No.3-Vishram Singh died and therefore, by order dated 05.07.2021, the appeal qua the appellant No.3 was abated. Thus, the present appeal now survives only qua the appellant No.1 – Amar Pal Singh and the appellant No.2 – Ram Kumar Singh. 3. From perusal of the order-sheet of this appeal, it appears that several letters
Facts
were sent to the District Judge, Etawah to send the record of the trial court relating to this appeal. By letter No.290/पन्द्रह dated 05.04.2005, the District Judge, Etawah informed this court as under: 2 " प्रेषक, सेवा में, जनपद न्यायाधीश, इटावा। अनुभाग अधिधकारी, दण्ड अनुभाग, माननीय उच्च न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद। 290/पन्द्रह दिदनांक इटावा अप्रेल 05, 2005 पत्र संख्याः- दिवषयः- माननीय उच्च न्यायालय में प्रचलिलत दण्ड अपील संख्या 2697/1981 अमरपाल सिंसह आदिद बनाम राज्य में सत्र परीक्षण संख्या 219/1980 राज्य बनाम अमरपाल सिंसह आदिद तारीख फैसला 30.10.1981 थाना बढुपुरा धारा 302/34 भा. द. सं. के अभिभलेख के प्रेषण के सम्बन्ध में। महोदय, उपयु:क्त दिवषयक आप अपने पत्र संख्या 3728 दिदनांक 3.3.05 का संदभ: ग्रहण करने का कष्ट करें। इस सम्बन्ध में यह अवगत कराना है दिक माननीय उच्च न्यायालय में प्रचलिलत दण्ड अपील संख्या 2697/1981 की सुनवाई के सम्बनध में वांभि@त सत्र परीक्षण संख्या 219/1980 राज्य बनाम अमर पाल सिंसह आदिद थाना बढ़पुरा अन्तग:त धारा 302/34, 307/34 व 307 आई.पी.सी. तारीख फैसला 30.10.1981 के अभिभलेख की नत्थी " ख" दिदनांक 01.09.1987 को स्वगDय श्री वी.डी. वमा:, सहायक अभिभलेखपाल द्वारा दिवनष्ट की जा चुकी है। इस सत्र परीक्षण की नत्थी '' क'' का अभिभलेख अभिभलेखागार में काफी तलाशने के बाद भी अभी तक उपलब्ध नहीं हो सका है। उपलब्ध आख्यानुसार इस मामले की केस डायरी भी पुलिलस अभिभलेखागार में दिवनष्ट की जा चुकी है। इस कारण सत्र परीक्षण की पत्रावली माननीय उच्च न्यायालय की सेवा में प्रेदिषत नहीं की जा सकी है। प्रभारी अधिधकारी (अभिभलेखागार) जजभिशप इटावा को पत्रावली खोने वाले कम:चारी का उत्तरदाधियत्व दिनधिJत करने हेतु आदेभिशत कर दिदया गया है तादिक उसके दिवरूद्ध दिनयमानुसार आवश्यक काय:वाही की जा सके। भवदीय ह०अप० (आर०एस० चौबे) जनपद न्यायाधीश, इटावा। " 4. Pursuant to some letters of this court, the District Judge, Etawah again sent a letter No.1999/XV dated 08.12.2015 with regard to trial court’s record/ reconstruction of records, as under: " प्रेषक, जनपद न्यायाधीश, इटावा सेवा में, उप-दिनबन्धक, दिQदिमनल अपील (ए)/ माननीय उच्च न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद। पत्रांकः 1999/XV दिदनांक- दिदसम्बर 08, 2015 3 दिवषयः माननीय उच्च न्यायालय की दण्ड अपील संख्या 2697/1981 अमरपाल सिंसह आदिद बनाम उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में वांभि@त पत्रावली सत्र परीक्षण संख्या- 219/1980 स्टेट बनाम अमरपाल आदिद, थाना बढ़पुरा, धारा 302, 307 भा.द.सं. दिनणDत दिदनांक 30.10.1981 द्वारा श्री एस.एन. हरकौली, तत्कानील सत्र न्यायाधीश, इटावा के प्रेषण के सम्बन्ध में आख्या। महोदय, कृपया उपरोक्त दिवषयक अपने काया:लय के अभिभयाचन पत्र संख्या- 32483/23.02.2015 का सन्दभ: ग्रहण करने का कष्ट करें। उक्त पत्र द्वारा उपरोक्त दण्ड अपील में सत्र परीक्षण संख्या - 219/1980 की पत्रावली को भेजे जाने हेतु दिनदSभिशत दिकया गया है। उपरोक्त के सन्दभ: में प्रभारी अधिधकारी-अभिभलेखागार एंव वरिरष्ठ प्रशासदिनक अधिधकारी की आख्या के अनुसार उक्त पत्रावली (सत्र परीक्षण -219/1980) की नत्थी '' ख'' तत्कालीन सहायक अभिभलेखपाल द्वारा दिदनांक 01.09.1987 को दिवदिनष्ट की जा चुकी थी तथा नत्थी-क के प्रपत्र अभिभलेखागार से गुम हो जाने के कारण एक प्रारम्भिम्भक जांच संख्या-03/2001 प्रचलिलत हुयी। उक्त प्रारम्भिम्भक जांच में दिदनांक 15.12.2009 को आख्या प्रस्तुत की गयी जिजसके अनुसार नत्थी-क के अभिभलेखागार से गुम होने के लिलये श्री वी०डी०वमा: तत्कालीन अभिभलेखपाल को प्रथम दृष्टया दोषी पाया गया। श्री वी०डी० वमा: की मृत्यु हो चुकी है। पुनJः, गुम हुई नत्थी-क के प्रपत्रों के पुनग:ठन की काय:वाही के आदेश दिदनांक 06.04.2005 को दिकये गये तथा पुनग:ठन अधिधकारी द्वारा उक्त मामले में गुम हुए प्रपत्रों के पुनग:ठन हेतु काफी प्रयास एंव काय:वाही की गयी परन्तु पुनग:ठन अधिधकारी की आख्या दिदनांक 02.09.2005 के अनुसार कोई भी सुसंगत अभिभलेख पत्रावली के सम्बन्ध में उपलब्ध नहीं हो सका, फलस्वरूप पत्रावली के पुनग:ठन होने की सम्भावना न होने के बावत आख्या प्रस्तुत की गयी। यह भी अवगत कराना है दिक उक्त के सम्बन्ध में इस काया:लय के पत्र संख्या - 415/XV दिदनांदिकत 26.06.2001, 856/XV दिदनांदिकत 09.12.2002, 737/XV दिदनांदिकत 10.10.2003, 290/ XV दिदनांदिकत 05.04.2005 एंव 738/ XV दिदनांदिकत 23.05.2015 द्वारा सूचनाये माननीय उच्च न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद को पूव: में प्रेदिषत की जा चुकी है। अतः आपसे अनुरोध है दिक उक्त प्रकरण में आख्या तदनुसार माननीय न्यायालय के समक्ष प्रस्तुत करने का कष्ट करें। संलग्नक- यथोपरिर। भवदीय ह०अप० 8.12.15 (एस०के०अग्रवाल) जनपद न्यायाधीश, इटावा।" 5. The aforesaid report of the District Judge, Etawah was followed by another letter No.186/XV dated 25.01.2016, which is reproduced below: '' प्रेषक, सेवा में, जनपद न्यायाधीश, इटावा उप-दिनबन्धक, दिQदिमनल अपील (ए)/ माननीय उच्च न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद। पत्रांकः 186/XV दिदनांक- जनवरी 25, 2016 दिवषयः माननीय उच्च न्यायालय की दण्ड अपील संख्या 2697/1981 अमरपाल सिंसह आदिद बनाम उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में वांभि@त पत्रावली सत्र परीक्षण संख्या- 219/1980 स्टेट बनाम अमरपाल आदिद, थाना बढ़पुरा, धारा 302, 307 भा.द.सं. दिनणDत दिदनांक 30.10.1981 द्वारा श्री एस.एन. हरकौली, तत्कानील सत्र न्यायाधीश, इटावा के प्रेषण के सम्बन्ध में आख्या। महोदय, 4 कृपया उपरोक्त दिवषयक अपने काया:लय के अभिभयाचन पत्र संख्या- 32483/23.02.2015 का सन्दभ: ग्रहण करने का कष्ट करें। उक्त पत्र द्वारा उपरोक्त दण्ड अपील में सत्र परीक्षण संख्या - 219/1980 की पत्रावली को भेजे जाने हेतु दिनदSभिशत दिकया गया है। उपरोक्त के सन्दभ: में प्रभारी अधिधकारी-अभिभलेखागार एंव वरिरष्ठ प्रशासदिनक अधिधकारी की आख्या के अनुसार उक्त पत्रावली (सत्र परीक्षण -219/1980) की नत्थी '' ख'' तत्कालीन सहायक अभिभलेखपाल द्वारा दिदनांक 01.09.1987 को दिवदिनष्ट की जा चुकी थी तथा नत्थी-क के प्रपत्र अभिभलेखागार से गुम हो जाने के कारण एक प्रारम्भिम्भक जांच संख्या-03/2001 प्रचलिलत हुयी। उक्त प्रारम्भिम्भक जांच में दिदनांक 15.12.2009 को आख्या प्रस्तुत की गयी जिजसके अनुसार नत्थी-क के अभिभलेखागार से गुम होने के लिलये श्री वी०डी०वमा:, तत्कालीन अभिभलेखपाल को प्रथम दृष्टया दोषी पाया गया। श्री वी०डी० वमा: की मृत्यु हो चुकी है। पुनJः, गुम हुई नत्थी-क के प्रपत्रों के पुनग:ठन की काय:वाही के आदेश दिदनांक 06.04.2005 को दिकये गये तथा पुनग:ठन अधिधकारी द्वारा उक्त मामले में गुम हुए प्रपत्रों के पुनग:ठन हेतु काफी प्रयास एंव काय:वाही की गयी परन्तु पुनग:ठन अधिधकारी की आख्या दिदनांक 02.09.2005 के अनुसार कोई भी सुसंगत अभिभलेख पत्रावली के सम्बन्ध में उपलब्ध नहीं हो सका, फलस्वरूप पत्रावली के पुनग:ठन होने की सम्भावना न होने के बावत आख्या प्रस्तुत की गयी। (आख्या की प्रधित संलग्न) यह भी अवगत कराना है दिक उक्त के सम्बन्ध में इस काया:लय के पत्र संख्या - 415/XV दिदनांदिकत 26.06.2001, 856/XV दिदनांदिकत 09.12.2002, 737/XV दिदनांदिकत 10.10.2003, 290/ XV दिदनांदिकत 05.04.2005 ,738/ XV दिदनांदिकत 23.05.2015 एंव 1999/XV दिदनांदिकत 08.12.2015 द्वारा सूचनाये माननीय उच्च न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद को पूव: में प्रेदिषत की जा चुकी है। अतः आपसे अनुरोध है दिक उक्त प्रकरण में आख्या तदनुसार माननीय न्यायालय के समक्ष प्रस्तुत करने का कष्ट करें। संलग्नक- यथोपरिर। भवदीय ह०अप० 25.1.16 (एस०के०अग्रवाल) जनपद न्यायाधीश, इटावा।" 6. A letter to the similar effect was again sent by the District Judge, Etawah vide Letter No.331/15 dated 16.02.2016. In the aforenoted backdrop, this court passed an order on 02.05.2016 as under:
Legal Reasoning
08.02.2017 addressed to the Registrar General of this Court in which he stated as under: "…….. अतः माननीय न्यायालय के आदेश के अनुपालन में सादर अवगत कराना है दिक उक्त पत्रावली के पुनग:ठन हेतु पूव: में तत्कालीन जिजला जज द्वारा पूण: प्रयास दिकये जा चुके हैं और यह पाया गया है दिक उक्त पत्रावली का पुनग:ठन संभव नहीं है। ऐसी म्भिस्थधित में उक्त पत्रावली की पुनग:ठन होना संभव नहीं है।” 12. On 01.10.2021, this Court directed the District Judge, Etawah to ask the District Magistrate, Etawah and the Superintendent of Police, Etawah as to whether they are having any record of the aforesaid session trial in their offices and will inform on the next date fixed. Direction was also issued to the learned Government Counsel that if he is having any record of the session trial in his office. The order dated 01.10.2021 is reproduced below:- “Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire facts as available in the appeal. It has been brought to our notice that the reconstruction process drawn by the District Judge, Etawah is indicative of fact that at the relevant point of time the clerk V.D. Verma was having the charge of the file and preliminary inquiry was held, wherein he was held responsible for the loss of record of the Sessions Trial No.219 of 1980, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station- Barhpura, District- Etawah. However, it has also been informed that no action could be taken on account of the death of the aforesaid clerk who happened to be then Incharge Record Room. Reconstruction of the record was directed by this Court, whereupon efforts have been made by the District Judge, Etawah by entrusting the matter to Additional District and Sessions Judge, who after inquiring into the matter has recorded finding that in this case not a single paper could be availed and the reconstruction of the record is not possible. However, we from the perusal of the entire report come together that in this case in so far as the District Magistrate, Etawah and Senior Superintendent of Police, Etawah are concerned, they have not been approached and not been asked as to whether they are having any papers regarding the record in their office, if they are in possession of any piece of the record then the same may be obtained from them.
Arguments
“Sri S.P. Tewari, Advocate has filed his power on behalf of appellant, which is taken on record. Learned counsel for the parties are present. As per office report dated 23.2.2016, it has been stated that the District Judge vide his report dated 16.2.2016 has submitted that the annexed Nathi "Kha" of lower court record of the present case has been weeded out on 1.9.1987 and so far as annexed Nathi "Ka" is concerned, that has been lost and inquiry was also initiated against the official concerned Sri V.D. Verma who was the then official incharge for the keeping of the record and was found guilty but he has died. As the lower court record Nathi "Ka" has been untraceable, hence the reconstruction of the same is not possible. The D.G.C concerned and S.S.P. Etawah are directed to verify whether they have any document regarding the present S.T. No.219 of 1980 or not and they shall submit the report to this Court within a month. The District Judge, Etawah is further directed to inquire from the said officials 5 regarding the availability of the lower court record from them. Copy of this order be given to learned AGA for it's compliance. The Registrar General of the Court is directed to send the certified copy of this order to the said officials for it's compliance. List the matter before the appropriate Bench on 12.7.2016.” 7. In compliance, an affidavit dated 11.07.2016 on behalf of the State was filed by Sri Rama Kant Dubey, Station Officer, Police Station, Badhpura, District Etawah. In paragraph-2 of his affidavit, he stated as under: “2.That a detailed report dated 08.07.2016 has been sent to Senior Superintendent of Police, Etawah, by the deponent detailing therein that in the aforesaid appeal at the level of D.G.C. (Criminal), a detailed, enquiry has been made but there is no availability of the records either from the A.D.G.C. as well as other Officials of the Court and from the office of Senior Superintendent of Police, Etawah as well as from the concerned Police Station no records was available and in such an eventuality there is no chance of reconstruction of Natthi 'Ka'. For kind consideration of this Hon'ble Court the Copies of Police Report as well as Question Answer and the Application moved to the D.G.C. (Criminal) Etawah is being filed herewith collectively and is marked as ANNEXURE NO.1 to this affidavit.” 8. A Letter No.1269/XV dated 19.07.2016 was again sent by the District Judge, Etawah to the Registrar General of this Court stating as under: "पुनग:ठन अधिधकारी द्वारा आख्या दिदनांदिकत 02.09.2005 के अनुसार कोई भी सुसंगत अभिभलेख पत्रावली के सम्बन्ध में उपलब्ध न होने के कारण पत्रावली पत्रावली पुनग:दिठत नहीं की जा सकी।” 9. Again District Judge, Etawah sent Letter No.75/XV dated 09.01.2017 stating as under: "चूंदिक पत्रावली से सम्बम्भिन्धत कोई सुसंगत अभिभलेख उपलब्ध नही है, अतः मेरे दिवचार में उक्त वाद का पुनर्विवचारण भी संभव नहीं है।” 10. Under the circumstances, again this court passed an order on 10.01.2017, as under: “Learned counsel for the parties are present. The District Judge, Etawah has submitted a report dated 19.07.2016, where he has reported that the Lower Court Record of the said case is not available and in his opinion there appears to be some possibility of its reconstruction but it does not appear from the report whether any effort has been made for reconstruction of the lower court record or not. The District Judge, Etawah shall make all efforts to get the lower court record of the case reconstructed from the record available with him and place it before this Court. List the matter after two months along with the report. The Registrar General of the Court is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the District Judge,Etawah for its compliance.” 6 11. In response, the District Judge, Etawah sent a Letter No.312/I dated
Decision
In view of above, we direct that the District Judge, Etawah will ask the District Magistrate, Etawah and the S.S.P. Etawah as to whether they are having any record of the aforesaid Sessions Trial in their offices and will inform on the next 7 date fixed. Similarly, we direct the learned Government Counsel if he is having any record of the Sessions Trial in his office so that further course of action may be ascertained. All efforts should be made at the respective level as above to avail the papers if the same is traceable. Put up this case on 9th November, 2021 in the additional cause list. Copy of this order be sent to the District Judge, Etawah for necessary follow up action.” 13. In compliance, the District Judge, Etawah sent Letter No.1963 dated 10.11.2021 to the District Magistrate, Etawah, Letter No.1964 dated 10.11.2021 to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Etawah, who submitted report to the District Judge, Etawah, which were forwarded by the District Judge, Etawah to this Court along with the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Etawah. In his report dated 27.11.2021 addressed to the District Judge, Etawah, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Etawah stated as under: "उल्लेखनीय है दिक उपलब्ध अभिभलेखों के आधार पर अभिभलेखों को रखने की दिनधा:रिरत समयावधिध पुण: होने के फलस्वरूप अभिभलेखों के नष्टीकरण की काय:वाही की जा चुकी है दिफर भी गदिठत कमेटी व स्टाफ द्वारा उपरोक्त दिवषयक अभिभलेख का अभिभलेखागार में उपलब्ध अभिभलेखों में तलाश दिकया व कराया गया तो उक्त प्रकरण से सम्बम्भिन्धत कोई भी अभिभलेख काया:लय/अभिभलेखागार में उपलब्द नहीं हो सका है। इसके अधितरिरक्त पेशी काया:लय जसवंतनगर में प्रचलिलत व पुराने रखे अभिभलेखों में गहनता से अभिभयोग से सम्बम्भिन्धत अभिभलेखों को तलाश कराया गया परन्तु कोई भी अभिभलेख काया:लय में उपलब्ध होना नहीं पाया गया। प्रश्नगत प्रकरण में गदिठत कमेटी द्वारा सभी सम्भादिवत स्थानों/काया:लयों में एसटी नं० 219/1980 बनाम अमरपाल सिंसह व अन्य अन्तग:त धारा 302, 307 भाददिव सम्बम्भिन्धत अ०स०122/1979 थाना बढपुरा जनपद इटावा से सम्बम्भिन्धत प्रपत्रों/अभिभलेखों को तलाश कराया गया परन्तु प्रकरण वष: 1979 का होने के कारण अभिभलेख नष्ट दिकये जा चुके हैं, जिजसके कारण पुलिलस दिवभाग में उक्त प्रकरण से सम्बम्भिन्धत कोई भी अभिभलेख वत:मान में उपलब्ध नहीं होना पाया गया है। गदिठत सदिमधित की आख्या की प्रधित संलग्न है।" 14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case regarding reconstruction of records and for exploring the possibility of retrial, this court passed an order dated 07.12.2021, relevant portion of which is reproduced below: “Pursuant to the above order and the reminder order dated 9th November, 2021, the District Judge, Etawah has submitted report "Flag Q" that he had called for report from the District Magistrate, Etawah and Senior Superintendent of Police, Etawah vide letter dated 10th November, 2021. In response whereto, the District Magistrate, Etawah sent letter dated 29th November, 2021 reporting that not a single paper relating to the concerned appeal is available. Similarly, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Etawah vide letter dated 27th November, 2021 submitted the same report. 8 In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to require the Government Advocate to seek instructions and file an affidavit of a responsible officer of the district concerned whether the record of the lower court can be reconstructed on the basis of any material that may be available. Such affidavit be filed within three weeks. List the matter on 10th January, 2022.” 15. In response, the District Judge, Etawah sent a Letter No.2057/I Judgeship Etawah dated 29.11.2021, as under: “From. District Judge, Etawah. To. Section Officer, Criminal Appeal Section (up to 1985), Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. Letter No.:-2057/1, Judgeship, Etawah Dated:- November 29,2021 Subject: For compliance of Hon'ble Court's Order dated- 01/10/2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.- 2697/1981 Amar Pal Singh Vs. State of U.P. arising out of Judgement and Order dated- 30/10/1981 in S.T. No.- 219/1980 Under Section 302/34 and 307/34 I.P.C. Ref. No.: 45983, dated:- 13/11/2021. Sir, Kindly take the reference of Hon'ble Court's letter no. 45983, dated- 13/11/2021, on the subject noted above. In this regard, this is to submit that in compliance of Hon'ble Court's order dated 09/11/2021. I have called report from District Magistrate, Etawah and S.S.P., Etawah vide this office letter nos. 1963/I, 1964/I Judgeship. Etawah, Dated 10/11/2021 (copies annexed). The District Magistrate, Etawah has sent her letter no. 483/A.J.A. S.T./2022 dated-29/11/2021, She reported that 'not a single paper' could be availed related to above mentioned Criminal Appeal (Copy of the report annexed herewith). The S.S.P., Etawah has sent his letter no. ST.-35/21 (Ma.Nayaya Prakran) dated- 27/11/2021, He reported that 'not a single paper' could be availed related to above mentioned Criminal Appeal (Copy of the report annexed herewith). You are, therefore, requested to kindly place the same before the Hon'ble Court for kind perusal. Encl:- As above. 9 Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Umesh Chandra Sharma) District Judge, Etawah” 16. An affidavit on behalf of District Magistrate, Etawah dated 06.01.2022 sworn by Sri Rakesh Vashishth, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Circle Officer, Chakarnagar), District Etawah was filed. In paragraphs-2 and 3 of the aforesaid affidavit, it has been stated as under: “2. That in compliance of the order dated 07.12.2021, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Etawah has constituted a team to look in the matter that reconstruction of the records are possible in the present case or not. 3. That the deponent very respectfully submits herein that in the present case the Committee constituted in the matter has consider in detailed, the possibility of reconstruction of the records in the present case and has come to the conclusion that the matter is of the year 1979 and no documents pertaining to the case is available and as such, reconstruction of the records are not possible. For kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court a photostat copy of the report is being enclosed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-1 to this affidavit.” 17. From the facts, reports as noted above and the orders passed by this court from time to time regarding reconstruction of records or for retrial, it is evident that the District Judge, Etawah, the District Magistrate, Etawah, Senior Superintendent of Police, Etawah have stated that no records relating to Session Trial No.219 of 1980 are available and, therefore, records cannot be reconstructed. In the reports containing correspondences regarding reconstruction of records, a letter of the District Government Advocate (Criminal), Etawah available along with the Letter No.312/I dated 08.02.2017 he mentioned that he has searched for the records but no records are available in his office relating to Session Trial No.219 of 1980 (Case Crime No.122 of 1979), P.S. Badhpura, District Etawah. 18. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Abhai Raj Singh, (2004) 4 SCC 6 (Paras-6 to 10), Hon’ble Supreme Court has held, as under:- “6. The powers of the Apppellate Court when dealing with an appeal from a conviction are delineated in sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of clause (b) of Section 10 386 of the Code. The Appellate Court is empowered by Section 386 to reverse the finding and sentence and acquit. Therefore, the acquittal is possible when there is reversal of the finding and sentence. The Appellate Court is also empowered to discharge the accused. The third category which seems to be applicable to the present case is a direction for re-trial by a court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to the Appellate Court or committed for trial. For exercise of the powers in cases of first two categories, obviously a finding on merits after consideration of the materials on record is imperative. Where that is not possible because of circumstances like the case at hand i.e. destruction of the records, the proper course for the Appellate Court would be to direct re-trial after reconstruction of the records if in spite of positive and constructive efforts to reconstruct the records the same was impossible. If on the other hand, from the copies available with the prosecuting agency or the defence and/or their respective counsel, reconstruction is possible to be made, said course should be adopted and the appeal can be disposed of as it deserved under course indicated in clauses (i) and (ii). After perusal of the records and hearing appellant's pleader and public prosecutor under Section 377 or 378, the exercise of power as indicated above can be resorted to. As was observed in Bani Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. (1996 (4) SCC 720) the plain language of Section 385 makes it clear that if the Appellate Court does not consider the appeal fit for summary dismissal, it must call for the records and Section 386 mandates that after record is received, the Appellate Court may dispose of the appeal after hearing as indicated. 7. A question would further arise as to what happens when the reconstruction is not possible. Section 386 empowers the Appellate Court to order that the case be committed for trial and this power is not circumscribed to cases exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. (See State of U.P. v. Shankar and Anr. AIR 1962 SC 1154). 8. It has been the consistent view taken by several High Courts that when records are destroyed by fire or on account of natural or unnatural calamities, reconstruction should be ordered. In Queen Empress v. Khimat Singh (1889 A.W.N. 55) the view taken was that the provisions of Section 423(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (in short 'the Old Code') made it obligatory for the Court to obtain and examine the record at the time of hearing. When it was not possible to do so, the only available course was a direction for re- construction. The said view was reiterated more than six decades back in Sevugaperumal, Re. AIR 1943 (Madras) 391(2). The view has been reiterated by several High Courts as well, even thereafter. 9. The High Court did not keep the relevant aspects and considerations in view and came to the abrupt conclusion that re-construction was not possible merely because there was no response from the Sessions Judge. The order for re- construction was on 1.11.1993 and the judgment of the High Court is in Criminal Appeal 1970 of 1979 dated 25.2.1994. The order was followed in Criminal Appeal No.1962 of 1979 disposed of on 16.8.1995. It is not clear as to why the High Court did not require the Sessions Court to furnish the information about re-construction of records; and/or itself take initiative by issuing positive directions as to the manner, method and nature of attempts, efforts and exercise to be undertaken to effectively achieve the purpose in the best interests of justice and to avoid ultimately any miscarriage of justice resulting from any lapse, inaction or inappropriate or perfunctory action, in this regard; particularly when no action was taken by the High Court to pass necessary orders for about a decade when it received information about 11 destruction of record. The course adopted by the High Court, if approved, would encourage dubious persons and detractors of justice by allowing undeserved premium to violators of law by acting hand in glove with those anti social elements coming to hold sway, behind the screen, in the ordinary and normal course of justice. 10.We, therefore, set aside the order of the High Court and remit the matter back for fresh consideration. It is to be noted at this juncture that one of the respondents i.e. Om Pal has died during the pendency of the appeal before this Court. The High Court shall direct re-construction of the records within a period of six months from the date of receipt of our judgment from all available or possible sources with the assistance of the Prosecuting Agency as well as the defending parties and their respective counsel. If it is possible to have the records reconstructed to enable the High Court itself to hear and dispose of the appeals in the manner envisaged under Section 386 of the Code, rehear the appeals and dispose of the same, on its own merits and in accordance with law. If it finds that re- construction is not practicable but by order retrial interest of justice could be better served - adopt that course and direct retrial - and from that stage law shall take its normal course. If only reconstruction is not possible to facilitate High Court to hear and dispose of the appeals and the further course of retrial and fresh adjudication by Sessions Court is also rendered impossible due to loss of vitally important basic records - in that case and situation only, the direction given in the impugned judgment shall operate and the matter shall stand closed. The appeals are accordingly disposed of.” 19. The law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhai Raj Singh (supra) has been reiterated in a recent judgment in Jitendra Kumar Rode vs. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 485 (Paras-35 to 40), as under: “35. In light of the abovementioned discussion, the Accused, in appeal, has a right to have the record perused by the Appellate Court and, therefore, upholding a conviction by merely having noted that the counsel for the accused not having the record at the time of filing the appeal is “doubtful” and that “no one can believe” the appeal would have been filed without perusing the record, as observed by the High Court is not correct. The job of the Court of Appeal is not to depend on the lower Court's judgment to uphold the conviction but, based on the record available before it duly called from the Trial Court and the arguments advanced before it, to come to a conclusion thereon. 36. In the facts at hand, the alleged offence in question was committed on 21.3.1995, and the judgment of the Trial Court was delivered on 7.12.1999. More than 28 years have passed since the commission of the offence. As already indicated, the relevant Trial Court record has not been able to be reconstructed, despite the efforts of the courts below. Hence, in our considered view, as discussed above, ordering a retrial is not in the interest of justice and will not serve any fruitful purpose. The time elapsed must be taken into consideration by the Court, and we may stress on that, only after taking due note of and taking steps to abide by the warning issued by this Court in Abhai Raj Singh (supra), as was correctly done in Sita Ram (supra). Conclusions 37. Protection of the rights under Article 21 entails protection of liberty from 12 any restriction thereupon in the absence of fair legal procedure. Fair legal procedure includes the opportunity for the person filing an appeal to question the conclusions drawn by the trial court. The same can only be done when the record is available with the Court of Appeal. That is the mandate of Section 385 of the CrPC. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, it is not within prudence to lay down a straightjacket formula, we hold that noncompliance with the mandate of the section, in certain cases contingent upon specific facts and circumstances of the case, would result in a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which we find it to be so in the instant case. 38. The language of Section 385 shows that the Court sitting in appeal governed thereby is required to call for the records of the case from the concerned Court below. The same is an obligation, power coupled with a duty, and only after the perusal of such records would an appeal be decided. 39. In the view of the aforesaid, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and the conviction dated 07.12.1999 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988), Lucknow, in Case No.7/1996 is set aside, subject thereof, is set aside. 40. The impugned judgment had directed the accused to pay, by way of an enhanced fine, Rupees 25,000. Given the above, the fine, be it of whatever amount, if deposited, is liable to be returned to the Appellant.” 20. In view of the facts and legal position as noted above and the fact that this Criminal Appeal is pending in this court from last more than 42 years, we are of the view that since as per report submitted by the District Judge, Etawah, District Magistrate, Etawah, Senior Superintendent of Police, Etawah, DGC (Criminal), Etawah, no records are available relating to the Session Trial No.219 of 1980 and neither reconstruction of record nor retrial is possible, therefore, mandate of law contained in Sections 385 and 386 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be complied with. 21. Learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. jointly submit that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as emerging from the records of this appeal regarding reconstruction of record/ retrial, the appeal may be disposed of in terms of the law laid down by Hon’ble supreme Court in the case of Ahai Raj Singh (supra) and Jitendra Kumar Rode (supra). 22. For all the reasons aforestated, the judgment and order dated 30.10.1981 in Session Trial No.219 of 1980 (State vs. Amar Pal Singh, Ram Kumar Singh and Vishram Singh) passed by the Session Judge, Etawah convicting the accused appellant No.1 - Amar Pal Singh for the offences under Section 13 302/34 and 307/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and five (5) years’ R.I. respectively and the appellant No.2 – Ram Kumar Singh for the offences under Section 302/34 and 307 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and five (5) years’ R.I. respectively, is set aside. The appeal is disposed of. If the appellant Nos.1 and 2 are on bail, their bail bonds and sureties are discharged and the appellants need not to surrender. Order Date :- 06.07.2023 NLY