STATE OF U P Vs. SHIV RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have perused the trial court judgment whereby the accused-respondents Shiv Ram, Subedar, Jageshwar, Jai Chand, Rameshwar, Madan Lal, Avadh Behari, Sheo Balak, Vijay Bahadur alias Raj Bahadur and Nanhey alias Suresh have been acquitted? by the order of the Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad dated 17.2.82, under Sections 148, 302/149, 307/149 and 436/149, IPC. In this case it is admitted that the leave was granted on 3.5.1983 by a Single Judge.

(2.) There is an order of the Division Bench dated 15.11.2010 which shows that in the present case efforts are being made for reconstruction of the record. However, a report was received from the office forwarded by the O.S.D. (Crl.) that the Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad had reported that all efforts of reconstruction were made, but in vain.

(3.) This Court sought a detailed report of the circumstances why reconstruction was not possible.? A letter dated 4.9.2012 was received which mentions the detailed steps taken for reconstructing the record. The District Judge had ordered on 26.2.11 that the record of S.T. No.320/80, State Vs. Shivram be got reconstructed as the High Court had called for the record on 23.5.03. Thereafter, the then Incharge, record room, District Court, Farrukhabad had given a letter dated 28.7.2003 that apart from the judgment dated 17.2.82 no other document was available in the record room and on 22.8.84 the other documents other than the judgment had been weeded out. After the order of the District Judge dated 26.2.11 notice was issued to the accused, who appeared before the Court and informed the Court that they had been made accused in the aforesaid case which had resulted in acquittal in 1981. They did not possess any document and even their advocates Jagat Narain Sinha, Rajendra Singh Rathore and Jagwant Singh Yadav had all died. Thereafter, the incharge inspector Kannauj was issued notice for supplying the original records and carbon copies of the FIR, Site plan, charge sheet, postmortem report, letter of medical examination, G.D. and C.D.s, but they again informed that no documents were available at the police station, hence, reconstruction was not possible.