ORDER :

Heard.

2. As many as six persons were convicted by the trial court for offences punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Appeals preferred by them against their conviction and sentence having failed, SLP(Crl.) Nos.7811-7813 of 2007 were filed by five out of the six convicts. Three out of the said petitioners in the said petitions appear to have surrendered while the remaining two, namely, Awadesh (Kumar) Singh and Sawaroo failed to do so. By an order of this Court dated 29th October, 2007, the special leave petitions of the said two petitioners were dismissed by Judge In-Chambers. Notice, qua the remaining three petitioners in the said special Signature Not Verified leave petitions, was issued by this Court on 1st February, 2008, followed by an order dated 6th January, 2009 by which this Court granted leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of the High Court.

3. On 18th July, 2012 when the matter again came up before this Court, learned counsel for the State of Uttar Pradesh was asked whether the absconding convicts had eventually surrendered to custody. He was however unable to make any statement and sought time to verify the position whether or not the absconding convicts had surrendered to custody. An affidavit was filed pursuant to the said direction stating that the absconding convicts continued to remain at large. While upholding the conviction of Lallan Singh and two others and dismissing the appeal filed by them, this Court noticed the affidavit filed by Mr. R.S. Rawat, D.S.P., Deoria but found the same unsatisfactory insofar as the same related to the efficacy of the steps allegedly taken by the authorities to apprehend the absconding convicts. This Court observed that the affidavits did not give any details as to steps taken over the past six years or so for apprehending the two convicts whose conviction for a double murder had been upheld by this Court with the dismissal of the special leave petitions filed by them and who had despite the said order of dismissal failed to surrender to custody. This Court was in that view constrained to direct an inquiry by the trial court into the circumstances in which the convicts continued to remain at large and fix responsibility of the concerned authorities. The trial court was directed to submit a report expeditiously but not later than six months from the date of the order.

4. When the matter came up again before us on 19th July, 2013, we examined the reports submitted by the trial court in terms of the order passed earlier and found that the trial court had found one Satish Chandra Shrivastava (then criminal clerk of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Deoria) to be negligent in the discharge of his duties. The report, it is noteworthy, pointed out that although one of the convicts, Awadesh (Kumar) Singh, had already been taken into custody, Sawaroo, the other convict continued to remain at large. The Report did not deal with the role of the prosecuting agency of the State or the negligence of any other agency in the discharge of its duty relating to the apprehension of the convicts. It was in that backdrop that this Court considered it fit to direct the Secretary, Home Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh to file an affidavit setting out the following information:

(i) The total number of convicts who remain at large despite their conviction having attained finality.

(ii) The offences, for which these convicts have been found guilty and sentence of imprisonment awarded to them as also the period for which they are at large despite dismissal of their appeals/revisions be also indicated.

(iii) Whether the State has any mechanism for keeping track of cases in which the accused are convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. If so, what is that mechanism and who are the persons/agencies responsible for ensuring apprehension and detention of such convicts who have exhausted all the