Evidence recorded in the absence of an accused, prior to their formal summoning to trial, cannot serve as a basis for conviction. The court must ensure a fair trial where evidence is led in the presence of the accused, protecting the inherent right of cross-examination.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Suyesh Pradhan, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Vipul Kumar Singh, the learned State Counsel.

2. By means of the instant appeal, the appellant has challenged the validity of a judgment and order dated 28.03.2026 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Court No. 3, Hardoi in Session Trial No. 465/2008, arising out of Case Crime No. 230/2008, under Sections 302/149, 307/149, 506(2) & 148 IPC, Police Station Beniganj, District Hardoi whereby the trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 302 read with Section 149, Section 307 read with Section 149, 148 and 506(2) IPC and has sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and Rs.10,000/- fine for the offence under Section 302/149, rigorous imprisonment for ten years and Rs.5,000/- fine for the offence under Section 307/149, rigorous imprisonment for two years and Rs.2,000/- fine for the offence under Section 506(2) and rigorous imprisonment for two years and Rs.2,000/- fine for the offence under Section 148.

3. The aforesaid judgment is a composite judgment whereby four sessions trial have been decided. The appellant was an accused only in one of the four trials, namely, Sessions Trial No. 465/208 and the judgment of the trial court, so far as it decides Sessions Trial No. 465A/2008, 466/2008 & 468/2008, has not been challenged and the same is not being scrutinized by this Court.

4. The appeal was admitted by means of the order dated 21.04.2026 and the trial court’s record was summoned. The state was granted time to file objections against the application for release of the appellant on bail. The State has filed a counter affidavit and the appellant has filed a rejoinder affidavit. However, as the trial Court's record is available, instead of deciding the bail application the Court proceeds to decide the appeal itself after hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties in support of an in opposition of the appeal and after perusal of the trial court's record.

5. The aforesaid case was instituted on the basis of an FIR lodged on 09.03.2008 alleging that the informant's cousin Vijay Kumar Singh @ Pappu was having animosity because of a prior criminal litigation against Bhau Singh, Bhanna Singh, Kallu Singh and Sport Singh and all the aforesaid persons are accused in a case under Section 307 IPC. Vijay Kumar Singh @ pappu was sitting on a platform in front of his door at about 08:00 p.m. on 08.03.2008. There was a lantern which was emanating light. Bhau Singh, Bhanna Singh and Sport Singh, sons of Chhotkau Singh came there carrying firearms. Pramod Kumar Singh @ Guddu Singh, son of Harnam Singh (the appellant) also came with them and he was carrying a country made pistol. All the aforesaid persons started firing gun shots. Vijay Kumar Singh got seriously injured because of the gun shot injuries. The complainant Pramod Kumar Singh @ Pintu Singh also suffered injuries in the incident. Several persons reached there and the accused persons ran away while threatening them. Vijay Kumar Singh @ Pappu was taken to the District Hospital, Hardoi but keeping in view his serious condition he was referred to Lucknow. He succumbed to his injuries on 09.03.2008.

6. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet on 27.05.2008 against Sport Singh, Bhanna Singh, Bhau Singh and Kallu Singh only. The charge-sheet stated that the appellant’s involvement in the incident could not be est