SAZID @ MENU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) None can dispute that at an adversarial trial, if the defence does not match up to the prosecution, an unfair trial causing prejudice to the accused results and the casualty is Article 21 of the Constitution.

(2.) We were inclined to give reasons as to why we were remanding the matter with reference to the issue raised qua the testimony of Mst.Khatiza PW-18 and the testimony of PW-11 and PW-14 and other documentary evidence qua the likelihood of the appellant being or not being at the place of the occurrence where the crime was committed, but learned counsel for the appellant and the State jointly prayed that lest either party be prejudiced at the remanded stage, recording their consent, matter be remanded with appropriate directions.

(3.) Thus, without expressing any opinion on the probabilities of the facts held proved through ocular evidence brought on record, noting the consent of learned counsel for the appellant and the State we set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 09.03.2010 convicting the appellant for the offence of having murdered Nazakat Ali in the morning of 17.08.2006 at house No.RZ-P- 17, Dayal Park, West Sagarpur, New Delhi as also for the offence punishable under Section 25 Arms Act. Consequently, with consent we set aside the order of conviction dated 12.03.2010.