The failure to comply with procedural safeguards under Section 342 Cr.P.C. constitutes a serious irregularity, warranting the setting aside of the conviction and remand for retrial.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is directed against the judgement of conviction dated 9th May 2015 and Order of sentence dated 30th May 2015, passed by Principal Sessions Judge, Pulwama, (hereinafter referred to as “Trial Court”) in a case bearing FIR no.147/2002 titled as State v. Nazir Ahmad Mir and others and for setting-aside the same on the grounds made mention of therein.

2. I have heard learned counsel for parties and considered the matter.

3. The prosecution case, as is apparent from perusal of the file as also Trial Court record, is that on 31st May 2014 police station Pulwama Page 2 received an information through reliable sources that at 2:00 PM at Rantipora, the acid was sprinkled upon the face of one Gulzar Ahmad S/o Ghulam Ahmad Mir R/o Ratnipora, which burnt his face and caused injuries as well. He was shifted to SMHS Hospital, Srinagar, for treatment. Consequently FIR no.147/2002 under Section 307, 326, 34/2021 RPC was lodged. Investigation was conducted. Medical Certificate was obtained by I.O., which reveals that offence under Section 307, 326, 34 RPCV were made out. Accused persons were arrested and lodged in judicial lockup. Challan was produced before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pulwama, who committed it to Trial Court. Accused were charged under section 307, 326, 201 RPC. Prosecution adduced evidence. 15 prosecution witnesses were produced and examined. Impugned judgement reveals that accused did not want to lead any evidence in their defence and to this extent the signature on the margin of the order dated 29th November 2019 had been obtained.

4. Mr S. N. Ratanpuri, learned counsel appearing for appellants, would contend that even though appellants had not committed any crime, yet after registration of FIR, appellants 1&2 were arrested on 15th June 2002 and appellant no.3 on 16th June 2002. The challan was filed against appellants on 8th June 2002. According to him, after framing charge, to which appellants pleaded not guilty, prosecution was directed to adduce evidence. The prosecution, out of 43 listed witnesses in the Challan, examined only 15 witnesses in support of its case. Learned counsel for appellants has also stated that the Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence led by prosecution in its right and proper perspective inasmuch as there were inconsistencies, Page 3 contradictions and exaggerations in the statements of witnesses produced by prosecution before the Trial Court. He further avers that the Trial Court has not recorded the statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. correctly. It is stated that when statement under Section 342 Cr.P.C. is not recorded in the manner provided by law and incriminating evidence, if any, existing on record is not put to the accused, the net result is that the accused is entitled to acquittal. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for appellants has placed reliance on various judgments, which includes judgement dated 17th July 2008, passed in Asraf Ali v. State of Assam , reported in AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 654 ; judgement dated 26th August 2019 passed in Samsul Haque v. State of Assam , reported in AIR 2019 SC 4163 ;judgement dated 14th December 2022 in Kalicharan and others v. State of U.P., reported in 2022 Livelaw SC 1027 : (2023) 2 SCC 583;judgement dated 11th May 2023 in Raj Kumar @ Suman v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 434 : 2023 SCC Online (SC) 609; judgement dated 19th October 2023 in Indra Kunwar v. The State of Chattisgarh, reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 932 :2023 SCC Online (SC) 1364; judgement dated 24th November 2023 Nababuddin @ Mallu @ Abhimanyu v. State of Haryana reported in 2023 Livelaw (SC) 1014 : AIR Online 2023 (SC) 941.

5. Although plethora of submissions have been made by Mr S. N. Ratanpuri, learned counsel appearing for appellants, yet threshold contention of learned counsel is germane to be taken up at first instance. It is contended by learned counsel for appellants that requirements of Section 342 Cr.P.C. have not been fo