JUDGMENT :

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. Borgohain, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State respondent.

2. The appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 12.06.2015, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Golaghat in Sessions Case No. 139/2003, by which the two appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default simple imprisonment for 2 (two) months. They were also convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 (one) month under Sections 323/34 IPC and simple imprisonment for 15 (fifteen) days under Sections 341/34 IPC.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the two appellants in this case and one Pranabjyoti Das had been convicted under Sections 341/323/302/34 IPC vide judgment dated 27.02.2007, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Golaghat in Sessions Case No. 139/2003.

4. The appellants and Pranabjyoti Das thereafter filed Criminal Appeal No. 76/2007 before this Court. Criminal Appeal No. 76/2007, which was disposed of vide order dated 05.12.2012, by remanding the case back to the learned Trial Court to determine the plea of juvenility taken by Pranabjyoti Das. This Court in its order dated 05.12.2012 also directed the learned Trial Court to examine the appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as none of the incriminating circumstances contained in the evidence of PWs. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 had been laid before the appellants so as to elicit their explanations with regard thereto. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court was to proceed with the case, from the stage of examining the appellants herein under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and record its final verdict.

5. Consequent to the order dated 05.12.2012, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 76/2007, the learned Trial Court examined the plea of juvenility taken by Pranabjyoti Das and held that Pranabjyoti Das was a Juvenile. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court proceeded with the case against the appellant herein by examining them under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 25.04.2013. The final arguments of the parties was thereafter heard by the learned Trial Court on 20.05.2015 and the case was disposed of vide the impugned judgment dated 12.06.2015, wherein the appellants were convicted under Sections 302/34, 341/34 and 323/34 IPC. However, the learned Trial Court had also passed a separate order on the date of disposal of the case, i.e. on 12.06.2015, stating that the learned Trial Court could not find the records of the examination of the appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. made on 25.04.2013. Accordingly, a fresh examination of the appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was undertaken by the learned Trial Court on 12.06.2015, i.e. the date the impugned judgment was passed by the learned Trial Court.

6. On perusing the LCR, we have found the records of the previous examination of the appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. taken on 25.04.2013. The order sheet of the learned Trial Court also shows that the appellants had been examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 25.04.2013. However, as the learned Trial Court could not find the examination of the appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C. taken on 25.04.2013, the subsequent examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been taken on 12.06.2015. Thus, it is quite apparent that there is irregularity in the manner in which the impugned judgment has been passed.

7. In the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Sukhdev Singh and Another, (1992) 3 SCC 700, the Supreme Court has held that after the Section 313 Cr.P.C. stage is over, the learned Trial Court has to hear the oral submissions of the counsels on the evidence adduced before pronouncing judgment on the evidence. The relevant paragraph 50 of the Supreme Court judgment in Sukhdev Singh (supra), wherein it has been stated that oral arguments are to be heard after the Section 313 Cr.P.C. stage is over,