NATHTHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been directed against the common judgment and order dated 10.2.2010 passed by the Special Additional Sessions Judge, Pratapgarh in Criminal Appeal Nos. 26 of 1998 and 28 of 1998, whereby the appeals were allowed and the judgment and order dated 16.9.1998 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh, passed in Criminal Case No. 1558 of 1993 Brahm Dutta vs. Sheetla Prasad Maurya and others was set aside and the case was remanded to the trial Court for recording the statement of accused appellants under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for short Cr.P.C, and for deciding the case afresh on merits after giving them opportunity to adduce evidence in defence.

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this revision are that a complaint case no. 1558 of 1993 was instituted by opposite party no. 2 against the revisionist and four others, who were summoned to face the trial by the Magistrate. On the basis of evidence recorded under section 244 Cr.P.C., the accused persons were tried for the offences of sections 218 and 120- B I.P.C. During the trial one accused died. The trial Magistrate acquitted two accused and convicted the remaining three, including the revisionists, under the said sections by judgment and order dated 16.9.1998. The convicted persons, preferred appeals against the same. During the appeals, one of the appellants died. The learned lower appellate court allowed both the appeals by a common judgment and after setting aside the impugned judgment and conviction order remitted the case to the trial court with the directions as aforesaid.

(3.) ONE of the grounds that was mainly raised before the lower appellate court and found favour by it is that the trial court had not properly complied with the requirement of section 313 Cr.P.C. as the questions relating to incriminating circumstances that had appeared against the accused persons in the prosecution evidence were not put to them to enable them to explain about those circumstances and thus such evidence could not be read against the accused persons. It appears that the trial Court had only put the following three questions to the accused persons under section 313 Cr.P.C., namely:-