IMPORTANT POINT
An appellate court must have access to trial court records to adjudicate appeals; without such records, it cannot assess the merits of the case, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

JUDGMENT :

Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I, J.

1. We have heard Ms. Meera Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State-appellant and have also perused the records available before us.

2. By means of the present government appeal, the State seeks to assail the judgment and order dated 11.03.1987, passed by the learned IXth Additional Session Judge, Lucknow in Sessions Trial Nos.472 of 1984, arising out of Crime No.135 of 1984, under Section 307 I.P.C., Police Station, Alambagh, District Lucknow, whereby the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused-respondents, Phool Chand and Hirdaya Narain of the charges under Sections 307 read with 34 I.P.C.

3. From a perusal of record, it transpires that the instant government appeal was filed against two respondents, namely, Hirdaya Narain and Phool Chand. However, the respondent, Phool Chand has died during the pendency of this appeal. The instant appeal in respect of respondent, Phool Chand has already been abated vide order dated 22.08.2022. Therefore, the appeal survives only with regard to the respondent, Hirdaya Narain.

4. The prosecution case, in short conspectus, is that the informant, Sri Chinaji Lal Badhani, was going home from his office on 10.04.84 when he found 10 persons, who were ex-employees of Scooter India Limited, staging a Dharna at the gate of the factory after being dismissed. All the ex-employees, including the accused Phool Chand and Hirdai Narain, nourished grudge towards the informant. Upon seeing the informant alone, the accused persons, Phool Chand and Hirdai Narain, assaulted the informant with a Danda. The informant sustained injuries on his left hand, right leg and forehead.

5. On the basis of aforesaid written report, Ext. Ka-1, a first information report as Crime No.98 of 1980, under Sections 147, 148, 149 & 302 I.P.C. came to be registered against all the accused-respondents at Police Station, Jethwara, District Pratapgarh.

6. From a perusal of the impugned judgment and order dated 11.03.1987, it appears that various opportunities were afforded to the prosecution to adduce evidence in support of its case. However, as the prosecution failed to adduce any evidence in support of its case, consequently, the learned trial Court closed the opportunity of adducing evidence and proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and order dated 11.03.1987, whereby, the respondents have been acquitted of all the charges leveled against them as there was no evidence against them.

7. On the face of it, we do not find any perversity with the findings of the learned trial Court. After affording a reasonable opportunity to the prosecution to adduce evidence in support of its case, the trial court proceeded to decide Sessions Trial No.472 of 1984. In the absence of any evidence to support the prosecution's case, the respondents were ultimately acquitted vide judgment and order dated 11.03.1987.

8. We notice that while admitting the instant government appeal, the trial court record was summoned. In this regard, the then District and Sessions Judge, Lucknow submitted a report dated 18.07.2022. The report reveals that the entire papers in the form of Natthi-B of the record of Sessions Trial Nos. 472 of 1984 have been weeded out and only the original judgment was available on the record, which was sent to this Court by the then Sessions Judge, Lucknow.

9. Section 385 Cr.P.C. requires that before the appeal is heard and decided it is necessary to send for the records of the case. Being relevant Section 385 Cr.P.C. is quoted hereinbelow:-

385. Procedure for hearing appeals not dismissed summarily.—

(1) .................................

(2) The Appellate Court shall then send for the record of the case, if such record is not already available in that Court, and hear the parties:

Provided that if the appeal is only as to the extent or the legality of the sentence, the Court may dispose of the appeal without sending for the record.

(3) .........................

(Emphasis supplied by us)

10. Hon'ble the Supreme Court