The appellant's conviction was set aside due to the lack of essential trial records, highlighting the right to a fair appeal and presumption of innocence.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 304(Pt. II)/34 - Appeal challenging conviction and sentence - Appellant convicted and sentenced to 6 years of rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs. 25,000; acquitted of charges under Section 201 IPC - Court emphasized the importance of trial records and noted that essential documents were unavailable. (Paras 1, 11, 15, 19)

(B) Right to appeal - The appellant must demonstrate that the conviction is unjustified based on available trial evidence; the presumption of innocence remains until guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 20, 21)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court but alleged the absence of significant trial records necessary to contest the conviction effectively.

Findings of Court:
The appellate court found that the non-availability of trial documents hampered the appellant's ability to contest the conviction, siding with the principle of the presumption of innocence.

Issues: The main issues were the non-reconstruction of critical trial documents and its effect on the appellant's right to a fair appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that reconstruction of trial records is essential for an appeal; without them, the conviction cannot stand, thus affirming the principle that the accused maintains a presumption of innocence at all times.

Result: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside.

Table of Content
1. conviction and sentencing details. (Para 1)
2. procedural history of the appeal. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. documents pertinent to the case unavailable. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. cited jurisprudence and legal standards. (Para 13 , 14)
5. court's reasoning on reconstruction and its importance. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
6. decision to overturn previous judgment. (Para 21)
7. conclusion and order of appeal. (Para 22)

JUDGMENT

Jasmeet Singh, J. (Oral)--This is an appeal challenging the conviction and order of sentence passed by the ASJ, Delhi dated 20.10.2003 and 23.10.2003. The appellant has been held guilty of charges under Section 304(Pt. II)/34 IPC and sentenced to 6 years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 25,000/-, which stands paid. In addition, the appellant was acquitted of the charges under Section 201 IPC.

2. The appeal was admitted on 07.11.2003 and the LCR and the Nominal Roll were called for. Since the LCR was not placed along with the appeal, on 03.12.2003, the LCR was again called for.

3. On 09.02.2009, the Court called for a report from the Registry regarding tracing out of the Trial Court record. Thereafter, the matter was re-notified for the concerned dealing assistant for tracing out the Trial Court Record.

4. On 18.02.2009, the Registry was directed to trace out the Trial Court record and prepare the compilations of paper book and furnish copies to both sides.

5. On 14.07.2009, this Court directed the concerned Deputy Registrar to hold an enquiry as to why despite directions, the LCR has not been placed before the Court. In addition, it was also directed that every effort would be made to produce the LCR before the next date of hearing.

6. On 22.10.2009, it was directed that that the counsel of the appellant should approach the counsel for the respondent and get the re-constructed record as supplied by the counsel of the appellant duly certified by the counsel for the respondent, so that this Court could proceed with hearing of the appeal.

7. On 12.11.2009, it was recorded that the counsel for the parties will make endeavour to re-construct the record and place it before the concerned Registrar to facilitate re-construction of the Trial Court record.

8. On 19.08.2010, another attempt was made to re-construct the Trial Court record by examining the Case Diary.

9. On 30.09.2010, whatever the Trial Court record could have been re-constructed was re-constructed and a paper book based on the re-constructed record was required to be compiled by the Registry. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time and on 26.07.2022, the appeal was directed to be listed for hearing. The appellant was entitled to get the entire Trial Court record in accordance with the High Court procedures.

10. Mr. Sud, learned senior counsel for the appellant states that a bare perusal of the paper book would show that it is incomplete in almost all aspects.

11. My attention has been drawn to the LCR, wherein a list has been given of the documents which could not be filed due to their non-availability with the Police and which were part of the Trial Court record (since destroyed):

i. Inquiry Report of the ACP.

ii. Final Inquiry Report of the S.D.M. (South).

iii. D.D. Entries.

iv. Seizure Memos.

v. Arrest Memos.

vi. List of Witnesses.

vii. Post Mortem Report.

viii. FSL/Viscera Report.

ix. Inquest Report

x. M.L.C.

xi. Roznamcha.

12. Besides the above documents, it is also an admitted case that even the depositions of the witnesses, both prosecution and defence, have not been re-constructed and are not available on the Court record.

13. Mr. Sud, learned senior counsel has relied upon judgments titled "Shyam Deo Pandey and Ors. v. The State of Bihar", [(1971) 1 SCC 855], "Sukhlal and Other v. State of U.P.", [(2014) SCC OnLine All 14965], "Mauji Lal and Ors. v. State of UP", [Crl. Appeal No. 474 of 1980], "Akalesh Kumar v. State of Maharashtra", [(2010) 3 AIR Bom R 532] and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document