RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appellants were found guilty and convicted by the court of sessions by judgment dated 30.03.2002 rendered in sessions case no.37/2000, whereby they were convicted on the charge for offences punishable under sections 394/397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). By order dated 02.04.2002, they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.3,000.00 each.

(2.) These appeals were filed to assail the aforesaid judgment and order on sentence. The sentences were suspended and the appellants were released on bail by orders dated 05.12.2005 and 02.02.2006 respectively. The appeals were admitted and put in the list of regulars. Their turn has come up for hearing seventeen years after they had been presented.

(3.) The proceedings on the appeals would show that the trial court record was requisitioned and placed before the court. While the appeals remained pending, the said record went missing from the registry. It may be mentioned here that similar loss of trial court record has been reported in more than one hundred criminal appeals. It has earlier been reported that upon information being placed before the Honourable the Chief Justice, some fact-finding-inquiries were made, but no official was held accountable or responsible. Pursuant to the administrative directions, issued by the Chief Justice, some endeavour was made to reconstruct the missing record. Partially reconstructed record was submitted by the court of sessions as per its report dated 23.01.2019. The said partly reconstructed record has been shared with the counsel for the appellants and the Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State. All sides have confirmed that it is not possible to reconstruct the remainder. The learned counsel on all sides including the Additional Public Prosecutor for the State further agree that these appeals can be considered and adjudicated upon on the basis of partially reconstructed record, no useful purpose being served, in view of what is observed hereinafter, by remitting the case for a de novo trial. The impugned judgment mercifully summarises crucial part of the material evidence that was adduced at the trial leading to the conviction.