LexKUNWAR BAHADUR SINGH versus SHEO BARAN SINGH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
KUNW AR BAHADUR SINGH A v. SHEO BARAN SINGH AND ORS. NOVEMBER 29, 2000 [SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] B Criminal Trial: Reconstruction of record-Accused prosecuted under ss. 14813021149 C /PC-Convicted and sentenced by trial court-Appeals by accused before High Court-Record of trial court and High Court found missing-High Court directing trial court to reconstruct the record-Trial court after issuing notices to parties and to their counsel reconstructed the record form carbon copies of statements of witnesses examined in the case and other documents copies whereof had been supplied to accused-Recorded statements of the D officials including the Reader of the trial court who had recorded the statements of witnesses-Reconstructed file a/ongwith necessary papers sent to High Court-High Court without going into merits of case allowed appeal on grounds that carbon copies of statements of witnesses were not countersigned by the Reader of trial court and there was no endorsement thereon as contemplate in the circulars of High Court and that a slight E variation in evidence would change entire complexion of case-Held, in view of the steps taken to reconstruct the records, after due verification, there is no valid reason to doubt genuineness of reconstructed record and the Sessions Judge concerned had reconstructed the file in best possible manner-A distinction must be made where trial court reports that construction of file p is impossible or reconstructed file is scanty or incomplete and a case where trial court after due verification reconstructs the file-In former case declining to go into merits may be justified but in latter case it is impermissible-Jn the instant case, there is properly reconstructed file-High Court erred in not going into merits of the case and acquitting the accused-Order of High Court set aside-High Court to consider and decide appeals on merits on basis of reconstructed records-Appeal-Deciding of on basis of reconstructed record-Practice and Procedure. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1078- 1082 of2000. 171 G H 172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. A From the Judgment and Order dated 17.9.98 of the Allahabad High Court B in Crl. M.A. No. 2050/98 in Cr. A. Nos. 546, 547, 548 and 589 of I 982. WITH Cr!. A. Nos. 1083-1086 of2000. Sushi! Kumar and Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advs., R.B. Misra, K. Mishra, Ms. Sangeeta Sharma, Pramod Swarup, Ms. Pareena Swarup, Praveen Swarup, Vishwajit Singh, N.S. Gahlot, R.K. Singh, Prakash Kumar Singh and Ravi Kumar Verma for the appearing parties. C The following Order of the Court was delivered : Delay is condoned. Leave is granted. D Against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, in Criminal Appeal Nos. 546, 547, 548 and 589 of I 982 dated September 17, I 998 and Crl. Misc. Application No. 2050 of I 998 dated October 5, 1998 the de facto complainant filed appeals arising out of SLP (Cr!.) Nos. 1459-1463of1999 and the State 1ofU.P. filed appeals arising E out of SLP (Cr!.) Nos. 1928-31 of I 999. These appeals raise a common question as to whether the High Court erred in law in not disposing of the said appeals filed by the respondents on merits on the basis of the re-constructed records. F The following facts need to be mentioned here. G. H The respondents were tried in S.T.No. 43 of 1982 by the learned !Ind Additional Sessions Judge, Rae Barelli and by his judgment and order dated July 16.1982, they were convicted and awarded punishment for various offences as follows: "Accused Hari Shanker Singh, Bhagwat Singh, Shiv Baran Singh and Shiv Prasad Singh are found guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 148/303/149 and 395 l.P.C. Each of them is convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year under Section 149 l.P.C. Life imprisonment under sections 302/149 l.P.C. R.I. for six months under Section 323/149 l.P.C. and R.I. for five years under Section 395 l.P.C. K.B. SINGH v. S. B. SINGH 173 Accused Sadri Singh, Amar Bahadur Singh, Sardar Bahadur Singh, A Sharda Bux Singh, Jitendra Bahadur Singh, Indra Bahadur Singh alias Dhunni Singh, Shiv Narain Yadav and Indra Bahadur Singh son of Shitla Bux Singh are found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 302/149 and 395 I.P.C. Each of them is convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for nine months under Sections 147 l.P.C., for li
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.