NANKU Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMAR Saran and R. K. Rastogi, J. The facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that the appellant and two oth ers named Ram Kumar and Uttam were charged under section 302/34 IPC and tried for the offence. The Trial Court, after hearing of the case, came to the conclusion that the charge was sufficiently proved against Ram Kumar and Nanku but it was not proved against Uttam. Hence, Uttam was acquitted of the charge but Ram Ku mar and Nanku were convicted under sec tion 302/34 IPC and sentenced to life im prisonment. Aggrieved with that judgment and order Nanku filed this appeal.

(2.) WHEN the record of the Trial Court was summoned for hearing of this appeal, it was reported that the record had been burnt in the incident of fire in the Record Room of the District Court. Thereafter steps were taken for reconstruction of the record but the record could not be reconstructed as no documents were available either with the prosecution, or with the accused or with the police or with the complainant. As reported by Sri S. K. Pandey, District Judge, Bareilly vide his letter No. 55 (v)-Crl. Dated 27. 7. 2007 that reconstruction of the record is not possible.

(3.) THE appeal is, therefore, allowed and the accused appellant is acquitted of the charge under section 302/34 IPC. He is on bail and he need not to surrender. His bail bonds are cancelled and his sureties are discharged. Appeal Allowed. .