JUDGMENT :

Ramesh Sinha, J.

(1) The above-captioned appeals along with Criminal Appeal No. 589 of 1982 were allowed and all the appellants were acquitted by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 17.09.1998 inter alia on the grounds that all the records including those which were called for from the trial Court, were found missing in the High Court and it would not be appropriate to proceed on the basis of carbon copies supplied by the complainant.

(2) Against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 17.09.1998, the de facto complainant, namely, Kunwar Bahadur Singh had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing Criminal Appeal No. 1078-1083 of 2000 arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 1459-1463/99, whereas State of U.P. had also approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing Criminal Appeal Nos. 1083-1086 of 2000 arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 1928-31/99. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had heard the aforesaid criminal appeals together with as the common question as to whether the High Court erred in law in not disposing of the said appeals filed by the respondents on merits on the basis of the reconstructed records, was raised. After considering the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record, the Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that the reason given by the High Court for doubting the authenticity of the reconstructed records, is untenable as in the instant cases, reconstructed file was proper, therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide judgment and order dated 29.11.2000, has passed the following order :-

“From the above discussion, it follows that in the instant cases, there is properly reconstructed file, therefore, the High Court erred in not going into the merits of the case and acquitting the convict appellants before it by allowing the appeals. Ergo we set aside the impugned order and restore the aforementioned criminal appeals to the file of the High Court to be heard and disposed of on merits. The High Court shall now consider and decide the appeals on merits on the basis of the reconstructed records.

It is needless to mention that while examining the merits of the case, it would be open to the High Court to examine the copies of statements in the reconstructed record on the basis of intrinsic inconsistency between the reconstructed records as the contents of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge or with reference to any irrefragible evidence placed before it by the appellants therein.

The appeals are accordingly allowed.”

(3) It appears that after remand from the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the aforesaid judgment and order dated 29.11.2000, the above-captioned appeals have been listed before different Benches of this Court. Vide order dated 04.03.2021, Hon’ble the Chief Justice has nominated this Bench and directed to place all the connected matters before this Bench. In these circumstances, the above-captioned criminal appeals have been listed before this Bench.

(4) Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to mention here that during the course of arguments, none of the parties have raised any objection with regard to the authenticity of the paper book of the instant case, which has been supplied to them or any document relating to this case and, therefore, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, we proceed to hear the above-captioned criminal appeals finally.

(5) The twelve accused persons, namely, Hari Shanker Singh, Bhagwat Singh, Shiv Baran Singh, Badri Singh, Amar Bahadur Singh, Shiv Prasad Singh, Sardar Bahadur Singh, Sharda Bux Singh, Jitendra Bahadur Singh, Indra Bahadur alias Dhunni Singh, Shiv Narayan Yadav and Indra Bahadur Singh, were tried by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Raebareli in Sessions Trial No. 43 of 1982 : State Vs. Hari Shankar and 11 others. In addition, accused Bhagwat Singh was also tried by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Raebareli in Sessions Trial No. 44 of 1982 : State Vs. Bhagwat Singh, for the offence