STATE OF U.P versus ABHAI RAJ SINGH AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] 2 S.C.R. 818 · Decided: 08-03-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
STATE OF U.P. 
v. 
ABHAI RAJ SINGH AND ANR. 
MARCH 8, 2004 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal procedure, 1973; Sections 385 and 386/Penal Code, 
I 860; Section 302 rlw Section 34: 
C 
Murder-Conviction of accused by trial Court-Appeal admitted-High 
Court called for records of the case-Trial Court informing that records were 
not available as destroyed in fire-High Court granting further time-No 
response from trial Court-High Court drawing inference that it was not 
possible for trial Court to reconstruct the record, thus mandate of law contained 
in Sections 385 and 386 Cr.P.C. could not be complied with, and directed 
D acquittal of the accused-On appeal, Held: High Court could further explore 
the possibility of reconstructing the records to effectively dispose of the 
appeals-It came to abrupt conclusion that reconstruction was not possible 
without keeping relevant aspects and consideration in view-It ought to have 
directed trial Court to furnish information about reconstruction of record-It 
E also failed to take initiative itself to find out as to the manner/method and 
nature of attempts/efforts and exer_cise undertaken for reconstruction of records 
to avoid any miscarriage of justice resulting from any lapse, inaction/ 
perfunctory action-Matter remitted back to High Court for fresh consideration 
and disposal in the light of the directions issued 
F 
The question which arose in these appeals for consideration was as to 
whether in exercise of power under Section 386 Cr.P.C., the appellate Court 
would be justified in directing acquittal, when the records of the trial Court 
were not placed before it on some ground or the other. 
It was contended for the appellant-Union oflndia that the approach of 
G the High Court was not correct and also not permissible under Section 386 
Cr.P.C. 
H 
Answering the question in the negative and disposing of the appeals, 
the Court 
818 
-
-
' 
I r
-( 
STATE OF U.P. v. ABHAI RAJ SINGH 
819 
HELD: 1.1. The Registry of the High Court should have placed the A 
matter before the appropriate Bench for further directions to explore the 
possibility of reconstructing the records, to effectively dispose of the appeals. 
[821-B-D] 
1.2. Section 386 empowers the Appellate Court to order that the case 
be committed for trial and this power is not circumscribed to cases exclusively B 
triable by the Court of Sessions. 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. 
[824-D-F] 
State of UP. v. Shankar and Anr., AIR (1962) SC 1154, relied on. 
c 
Re Sevugaperumal and Ors., AIR (1943) Madras 391, referred to. 
Queen Empress v. Khimat Singh, (1889) A.W.N. 55, referred to. 
1.3. The High Court did not keep the relevant aspects and considerations D 
in view and came to the abrupt conclusion that re-construction was not 
possible merely because there was no response from the Sessions Judge. 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 pQsitive directions as to the manner, method and nature E 
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, particularly when no action was taken by the High Court to pass 
necessary orders for about a decade when it received information about 
destruction of record. The course adopted by the High Court, if approved, F 
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. Hence order of the High Court is set aside and 
the matter remitted back with directions for fresh consideration and disposal G 
on merits. (824-G-H; 825-A-E] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 
1243-1244 of 1997. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.8.95 and 25.2.94 of the Allahabad H 
820 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] 2 S.C.R. 
A High Court in Cr!. A. Nos. 2. 1962 and 1970 of 1979. 
C.D. Singh and Vijay Pratap Singh for J.K. Bhatia, for the Appellant. 
Manoj Saxena for Pravi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.