Kunwar Singh vs State Of U.P.And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 19089 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:148848-DB
 
 
 
Court No. - 42
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2308 of 1982
 

 
Appellant :- Kunwar Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. and Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- S.S. Tewari,A.C. Chaturvedi,Satish Trivedi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- D.G.A.,Dileep Kumar
 

 
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.

1. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant nos. 1 & 3 and Smt. Manju Thakur, learned A.G.A. for the opposite party.

2. By order dated 05.06.2023, the appeal qua the accused appellant no.2 Raja Singh and accused appellant no.4 Komal Singh was abated.

3. Perusal of the order sheet shows that correspondence for sending the trial court record is being made since the year 2003.

4. Vide letter no.665/xv/25.08.2004 and letter no.666/xv/25.08.2004, District Judge Etawah, has informed that lower court record relating to session trial in question i.e. Session Trial No.176 of 1981 (State Vs. Kunwar Singh and others) and connected Session Trial No.329 of 1981 (State Vs. Komal Singh) have been weeded out on 19.07.1993. Under the circumstances, this Court passed an order dated 06.07.2023, as under :

"Heard Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant Nos.1 and 3 and Smt. Manju Thakur, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party.

The appellants were convicted by Judgment and Order dated 16.09.1982 in Session Trial No.176 of 1981 (State vs. Kunwar Singh and others) and Session Trial No.329 of 1981 (State Vs. Komal singh) passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Etawah under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced for life imprisonment. Against the aforesaid Judgment and Order, the appellants have filed the present appeal.

During pendency of the Appeal, the appellant No.2 namely Raja Singh son of Arjun Singh and the appellant No.4 - Komal Singh son of Devi Singh died. By order dated 05.06.2023, the appeal qua the appellant Nos.2 and 4 was abated.

Trial court records were not received despite several orders of this Court. The District Judge, Etawah by letter dated 25.08.2004 had informed that record relating to Session Trial in question and police Case Diary are not available and as such reconstruction of record is not possible.

Since the aforesaid report was sent by the District Judge, Etawah about 19 years back, therefore, we feel it appropriate to direct as under:

(i) The District Judge, Etawah shall make every effort to get the records of the Session Trial No.176 of 1981 and Session Trial No.329 of 1981. For this purpose, he shall also call for copies of all relevant records relating to the aforesaid two Session Trials as may be available in the office or under the control of the District Magistrate, Etawah, Superintendent of Police, Etawah and the DGC (Criminal), Etawah.

(ii) District Magistrate, Etawah and the Superintendent of Police, Etawah shall file their affidavits stating as to whether any record relating to the aforesaid two Session Trials are available in their office and if it is available, whether it has been provided to the District Judge, Etawah.

(iii) The District Judge, Etawah shall also submit his report regarding reconstruction of record and also as to whether retrial is possible.

All the affidavits and reports shall be filed before the next date fixed.

List/ put up in the additional cause list on 26.07.2023 at 02:00 P.M.

Learned A.G.A. shall inform this order in writing to the District Magistrate, Etawah and Superintendent of Police, Etawh within three days for compliance.

Let a copy of this order be also sent by the Registrar (Compliance) to the District Judge, Etawah for compliance.

When the case is next listed, name of Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey shall also be shown as counsel for the appellant No.1."

5. As per office report dated 14.07.2023, a letter of the District Judge, Etawah, dated 22.07.2023 has been received in which it has been stated by the District Judge, Etawah, that reconstruction of lower court record is not possible and retrial of the case is also not possible.

6. The letter No.1969/I Etawah, dated 22.07.2023 received by this Court from the District Judge, Etawah with respect to the reconstruction of the lower court record and retrial, is reproduced below :

"प्रेषक,

जनपद न्यायाधीश,

इटावा।

सेवा में,

श्री अनूप कुमार राय,

निबन्धक (अनुपालना)

माननीय उच्च न्यायालय,

इलाहाबाद।

पत्रांक- 1964/I इटावा दिनांक- जुलाई 22, 2023

विषय- माननीय उच्च न्यायालय की दण्ड अपील सं० 2308/1982 कुंवर सिंह आदि प्रति उ० प्र० राज्य आदि में माननीय न्यायालय द्वारा पारित सम्मानित आदेश दिनांकित 06.07.2023 के अनुपालन के सम्बन्ध में।

सन्दर्भ सं०- आर० सी० 3195 (क्रिमिनल) दिनांक 13.07.2023

महोदय,

माननीय न्यायालय के सम्मानित पत्र सं० आर०सी० 3195(क्रिमिनल) दिनांक 13.07.2023 के अनुपालन में ससम्मान निवेदन है कि माननीय न्यायालय द्वारा दण्ड अपील सं० 2308/1982 कुंवर सिंह आदि प्रति उ० प्र० राज्य आदि में पारित सम्मानित आदेश दिनांकित 06.07.2023 द्वारा आदेशित किया गया है कि माननीय उच्च न्यायालय की उपरोक्त दण्ड अपील से सम्बन्धित सत्र परीक्षण सं० 176/1981 एवं 329/1981 के पुनर्गठन के सम्बन्ध में पुनः प्रयास किये जायें और यदि पुनर्गठन संभव न हो तो क्या उपरोक्त सत्र परीक्षणों के पुनः परीक्षण के सम्बन्ध में कोई संभावना है अथवा नही, से अवगत कराया जाये।

माननीय न्यायालय के उपरोक्त सम्मानित आदेश का अनुपालन सुनिश्चित कराये जाने हेतु श्री आलोक कुमार श्रीवास्तव, अपर जनपद एवं सत्र न्यायाधीश कोर्ट सं० 7 इटावा को पुनर्गठन अधिकारी नियुक्त किया गया। उनके द्वारा अपनी आख्या दिनांकित 21.07.2023 प्रेषित की गई है, जिसके आधार पर मेरी आख्या निम्नवत् हैः-

माननीय न्यायालय से सादर निवेदन है कि पुनर्गठन अधिकारी द्वारा अभिलेखपाल जजी इटावा से आख्या आहूत की गई, जिसके अनुसार " मौके पर उपलब्ध गोश्वारे के अनुसार वांछित पत्रावली की नत्थी 'क' एवं नत्थी 'ख' दिनांक 29.07.1993 को विनिष्ट की जा चुकी है तथा पत्रावली में शेष बचा मूल निर्णय माननीय उच्च न्यायालय की उपरोक्त दण्ड अपील सं० 2308/1982 कुंवर सिंह आदि प्रति उ० प्र० राज्य के अनुपालन में अभिलेखागार में उपलब्ध सम्बन्धित वर्ष के कोरियर रजिस्टर के अनुसार दिनांक 08.01.2004 को माननीय उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद प्राप्त कराया जाना अंकित है।"

माननीय न्यायालय से सादर निवेदन है कि पुनर्गठन अधिकारी द्वारा जिला शासकीय अधिवक्ता (दण्ड) इटावा से आख्या आहूत की गई, जिनकी आख्या के अनुसार " जिला शासकीय अधिवक्ता (दण्ड) इटावा के कार्यालय में भी इन पत्रावलियों के पुनर्गठन के बाबत कोई भी अभिलेख उपलब्ध नही है।"

माननीय न्यायालय से सादर निवेदन है कि पुनर्गठन अधिकारी द्वारा सत्र परीक्षण वाद से सम्बन्धित थाना सहसों जनपद इटावा से आख्या आहूत की गई, जिसके अनुसार " पुनर्गठन के सम्बन्ध में कोई भी प्रपत्र अथवा अभिलेख थाना सहसों में उपलब्ध नही है।"

माननीय न्यायालय से सादर निवेदन है कि पुनर्गठन अधिकारी द्वारा अभियुक्तगण कुंवर सिंह व सोबरन सिंह को भी नोटिस प्रेषित किये गये, जिस पर अभियुक्त कुंवर सिंह न्यायालय मे उपस्थित आया और उसने शपथ पर बयान दिया कि " शपथकर्ता के पास उपरोक्त मुकदमें की कोई भी पत्रावली उपलब्ध नहीं है" इसी मामले में अभियुक्त कुंवर सिंह द्वारा सह अभियुक्त सोबरन सिंह के सम्बन्ध में शपथ पत्र प्रस्तुत किया गया। शपथ पत्र के अनुसार " उपरोक्त मुकदमे के सह अभियुक्त सोबरन सिंह जिनकी आयु लगभग 93 वर्ष है और वह चलने-फिरने व उठने-बैठने में असमर्थ हैं।"

माननीय न्यायालय से सादर निवेदन है कि पुनर्गठन अधिकारी की आख्या के अनुसार " वादी मुकदमा बाबू सिंह की मृत्यु हो चुकी है और उसके लड़के के पास भी इस मुकदमें से सम्बन्धित कोई कागजात नही है।"

माननीय न्यायालय से सादर निवेदन है कि पुनर्गठन अधिकारी द्वारा वरिष्ठ पुलिस अधीक्षक इटावा को भी पत्र प्रेषित किया गया। उनकी आख्या के अनुसार " वर्ष 1981 के समस्त थानों की मूल/द्वितीय जी०डी० केस डायरी आदि से सम्बन्धित अभिलेखागार इटावा में दाखिल शुदा अभिलेख नियमानुसार नष्ट/वीडआउट किये जा चुके है"

माननीय न्यायालय से सादर निवेदन है कि पुनर्गठन अधिकारी द्वारा जिलाधिकारी इटावा को भी पत्र प्रेषित किया गया, जिनकी आख्या के अनुसार " उक्त सत्र परीक्षण से सम्बन्धित जिलाधिकारी कार्यालय में कोई अभिलेख नहीं है तथा भविष्य में भी उक्त सत्र परीक्षणों से सम्बन्धित कोई अभिलेख उपलब्ध होने की संभवना प्रतीत नहीं होती है"

माननीय न्यायालय से सादर निवेदन है कि पुनर्गठन अधिकारी द्वारा अपनी आख्या में यह उल्लेख किया गया है कि इन परिस्थितियों में विनिष्ट किये गये सत्र परीक्षण सं० 176/1981 व 329/1981 के अभिलेखों का पुनर्गठन किया जाना संभव नहीं है। उनके द्वारा अपनी आख्या में यह भी कथन किया गया है कि पुनर्विचारण के लिये अभियोजन प्रपत्र जैसे कि प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट, आरोप पत्र, केस डायरी आदि की आवश्यकता होती है क्योकिं आरोप पत्र में गवाहों के नाम व पते अंकित होते हैं। तथा केस डायरी में गवाहों के बयान अन्तर्गत धारा 161 दं०प्र०सं० अंकित होते हैं। इनके बिना पुनर्विचारण किया जानासंभव नही है। पुनर्गठन अधिकारी की आख्या माननीय न्यायालय के सुलभ सन्दर्भ हेतु संलग्न कर सादर प्रेषित है।

माननीय न्यायालय से सादर निवेदन है कि पुनर्गठन अधिकारी की आख्या एवं समस्त सम्बन्धित से प्राप्त आख्याओं के सम्यक अवलोकन एवं परिशीलन से मेरे मत में उपरोक्त सत्र परीक्षण सं० 176/1981 व 329/1981 का पुनर्गठन किया जाना संभव नहीं है और उपरोक्त मुकदमों से सम्बन्धित कोई भी अभिलेख पुनर्गठित न हो सकने के कारण उपरोक्त मुकदमों के पुनर्विचारण की भी कोई संभावना नहीं है।

माननीय न्यायालय को सादर अवगत कराना है कि उपरोक्त दोनों सत्र परीक्षणों की पत्रावलियां तत्कालीन अभिलेखपाल श्री ज्ञानीराम संत द्वारा विनिष्ट की गई थी, जिनकी सेवानिवृत्ति के उपरान्त दिनांक 26.12.2007 को मृत्यु हो चुकी है।

माननीय न्यायालय को सादर अवगत कराना है कि जिला मजिस्ट्रेट इटावा एवं वरिष्ठ पुलिस अधीक्षक इटावा द्वारा अपने शपथ पत्र दाखिल किये गये हैं, जिनके अनुसार उपरोक्त मुकदमों से सम्बन्धित कोई भी अभिलेख उनके कार्यालय व अन्य सम्बन्धित कार्यालयों में उपलब्ध नहीं है। जिला मजिस्ट्रेट इटावा एवं वरिष्ठ पुलिस अधीक्षक इटावा के शपथ पत्र मूल रूप में सादर अवलोकनार्थ संलग्न हैं।

अतः महोदय से ससम्मान अनुरोध है कि यह आख्या माननीय न्यायालय के समक्ष सादर अवलोकनार्थ प्रस्तुत करने का कष्ट करें।

सादर।

संलग्नक- यथोपरि

भवदीय

ह० अप०

(विनय कुमार द्विवेदी)

जनपद न्यायाधीश

इटावा

पत्रांक / इटावा दिनांक- जुलाई , 2023

प्रतिलिपि- अनुभाग अधिकारी, दाण्डिक अपील अनुभाग 1980-85, माननीय उच्च न्यायालय इलाहाबाद को उनके पत्र सं० 39890 दिनांकित 12.07.2023 के अनुपालन में सादर प्रेषित है।

ह० अप०

जनपद न्यायाधीश

इटावा"

7. Learned A.G.A. states that the District Magistrate, Etawah and Senior Superintendent of Police, Etawah, have apprised the District Judge that no record relating to Session Trial in question is available.

8. Perusal of the aforequoted letter of the District Judge shows that the District Judge has made efforts for reconstruction of record of the Session Trial in question and thereafter came to the conclusion that neither reconstruction of lower court record of the session trial in question is possible nor retrial is possible.

9. In view of the aforesaid, the statutory mandate of Section 385(2) Cr.P.C. is not possible to be observed.

10. 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 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 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."

11. 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 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."

12. In view of the facts and legal position as noted above and the fact that these Criminal Appeals are pending in this court from last more than 41 years, we are of the view that since as per reports submitted by the District Judge, Etawah and Superintendent of Police, Etawah, no records are available relating to the Session Trial No.176 of 1981 (State Vs. Kunwar Singh and others) and connected Session Trial No.329 of 1981 (State Vs. Komal Singh) 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.

13. 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).

14. Since in the present set of facts, as per report submitted by the District Judge, Etawah neither any record of Session Trial No.176 of 1981 connected with Sessions Trial No.329 of 1981 (Case crime no.03/1981) are available nor name of witnesses are available, nor as per records/affidavits, record of the aforesaid session and trial can be reconstructed nor retrial is possible, therefore, we are left with no alternative option except to dispose of the appeal in terms of the judgment of Supreme Court in State of U.P. Vs. Abhai Raj Singh and another, (2004) 4 SCC 6.

15. For all the reasons aforestated the impugned judgement and order in Session Trial No.176 of 1981 connected with Sessions Trial No.329 of 1981 arising out of Case Crime No.03 of 1981 is hereby set aside. The appeal is disposed of. If the appellants are on bail, their bail bonds and sureties are cancelled. They need not surrender.

16. Office is directed to communicate this order to the Court concerned forthwith.

Order Date :- 26.7.2023/vkg