Bombay High Court
Roshan S/O. Channulal Lilhare (In Jail) vs State Of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O., P.S. ... on 23 January, 2020
Author: Madhav J. Jamdar
Bench: Sunil B. Shukre, Madhav J. Jamdar
Judgment 1 APL158.2019.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 158/2019
Roshan S/o Channulal Lilhare,
Aged about 25 years, Occu. - Labour,
R/o. At Present in Central Jail,
R/o. Village Nansa, Tahasil Varashioni,
Dist. Balaghat (M.P.).
.... APPLICANT
// VERSUS //
1) State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Police Station, Gittikhadan, Nagpur.
.... RESPONDENT
______________________________________________________________
Shri S. H. Sudame, Counsel for the appellant.
Mrs S. V. Kolhe, A.P.P. for the respondent.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
MADHAV J. JAMDAR, JJ.
DATED : 23rd January, 2020.
JUDGMENT :( Per : Madhav J. Jamdar, J. )
1. The appellant-original accused has filed above appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 28.06.2018 passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.393/2015. By the said judgment and order, appellant was convicted as per Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the offence ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 23:02:34 ::: Judgment 2 APL158.2019.odt punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Pena Code for having committed murder of deceased Munesh Lilhare and was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant was also convicted of the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. It was further directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. We have heard extensively Shri. S. H. Sudame, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mrs. S. V. Kolhe, learned A.P.P. for the respondent/State.
3. Shri. S. H. Sudame, learned counsel for the appellant taken us through the evidence of various witnesses and also documentary evidence and argued that this is a case of circumstantial evidence and prosecution has failed to establish all the circumstances. He further argued that as all the circumstances which are held to be against appellant particularly contents of Chemical Analyzer's Report are not put to the appellant during the examination conducted under Section ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 23:02:34 ::: Judgment 3 APL158.2019.odt 313 of the appellant, the appeal is required to be allowed and the impugned judgment and order is required to be quashed and set aside.
4. Mrs. S. V. Kolhe, learned A.P.P. for the respondent State, on the other hand argued that the learned Trial Court has set out in detail the circumstances which show the involvement of the appellant in the crime and all the circumstances are established and they form a chain and therefore requirement of case of circumstantial evidence is complied with. She further submitted that although, details of the Chemical Analyzer Report are not pointed out to the appellant in his examination under Section 313, however, generally they were pointed out and therefore, the same is sufficient compliance with Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, no interference is required.
5. The prosecution case as can be seen from the report dated 10.06.2015 (Exh.31) and other material on record is that, the appellant is a real brother of deceased Munesh and both of them are from village Nansa, Tahsil Varashioni, Dist. Balaghat (M.P.). Both of them along with two others were residing in the premises situated on the first floor of the house of P.W.3 Purushottam Sayare, who lodged First Information Report dated 10.06.2015 and all of them were ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 23:02:34 ::: Judgment 4 APL158.2019.odt working as labourers and had gone to their native place on 20.05.2015, and appellant and deceased Munesh returned to Nagpur on 06.06.2015. As per the prosecution case, there used to be quarrels between the appellant and the deceased as the appellant was demanding motor cycle from the parents and the deceased was opposing the same. As per the report given by the informant P.W.3 Purushottam Sayare which is at Exh.31 on the basis of which F.I.R. at Exh.32 was registered in the night of 09.06.2015 at about 11.30 pm. he heard noise of quarrel between the appellant and the deceased Munesh but he ignored the same as there used to be frequent quarrels between them for the aforesaid reason of purchase of motor cycle. As per the said report at about 05.00 am. on 10.06.2015, the appellant came to the house of the P.W.3 and knocked the door of his house and woke them up, at that time appellant was very frightened and told P.W.3 that somebody had killed his brother and pointed out the body of the deceased which was near the compound wall of his house. The P.W.3 immediately went near the body and found that there was bleeding injury on the head of the deceased, banian and underwear of the deceased was smeared with blood. Thereafter, immediately the appellant and P.W.3 went to the house of relative of appellant Shobhelal Maskare (P.W.1) who stayed at a distance of about 200 mtrs. from the house of P.W.3 and informed him about the incident. Thereafter, the ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 23:02:34 ::: Judgment 5 APL158.2019.odt appellant immediately left behind his relative Shobhelal Maskare (P.W.1) and the informant Pusushottam Sayare (P.W.3) and went back towards the house of the informant Purushottam Sayare P.W.3. Thereafter, Shobhelal Maskare (P.W.1) and Pusushottam Sayare (P.W.3) when returned to the spot of the incident noticed that the appellant was absent at the spot of the incident and therefore Pusushottam Sayare (P.W.3) along with his wife, son Pankaj Sayare (P.W.8) and Shobhelal Maskare (P.W.1) went on the first floor in the premises where the appellant and the deceased were staying and they found that the appellant was wiping out bloodstains on the floor by soaking cloth from bucket water. When Pusushottam Sayare (P.W.3) questioned appellant, he told him that he was just cleaning the floor as some bloodstains of his brother are splashed on the floor. Thereafter, on questioning the appellant, appellant informed that, as the deceased had prepared some spicy vegetable, quarrel took place between them and and therefore he was not able to sleep properly and during that quarrel, the deceased had assaulted him. The appellant further informed to them that as the deceased was opposing him in purchase of the motor cycle, when deceased was sleeping at about 2.00 am. in the night he went out and brought one rafter used in centering work and assaulted Munesh on his head 2-3 times, as a result deceased died. The appellant further informed them that the bed and rafter which were smeared with blood ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 23:02:34 ::: Judgment 6 APL158.2019.odt were thrown by him in a Well situated on the other side of the compound wall. Thereafter, he brought down the dead body of the deceased and wanted to throw the same in the Well, however, he could not carry the dead body beyond compound wall and therefore, he left the dead body near the compound wall. Thereafter, Pankaj Sayare (P.W.8) made telephone call to Police and informed about the said incident. The said information given by Pusushottam Sayare - P.W.3 on 10.06.2015 was recorded at Exh.31 and on the basis of the same, printed F.I.R. (Exh.32) was registered.
6. The police investigated the crime and during investigation, seized one pillow (Article-D) lying at the distance of 100 mtr. from the place of the dead body and wooden rafter (Article-B) and quilt (Article-C) lying in the well. The P.W.9 API Anant Bhande also called Dog Squad and PSI Boriwal prepared investigation report of Dog Squad (Exh.28), thereafter, spot panchnama Exh.44 was prepared by P.W.9 API Anant Bhande. Inquest panchnama Exh.22 of the dead body of the deceased was prepared by PSI V. D. Kedare in the presence of two panch witnesses and dead body was sent for postmortem to IGMC (Mayo) Hospital, Nagpur. Dr. Harshawardhan Khartade (P.W.4) conducted postmortem of the dead body and issued postmortem report (Exh.37) mentioning probable cause of death being head injury. API ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 23:02:34 ::: Judgment 7 APL158.2019.odt Anand Bhande (P.W.9) during further investigation on 10.06.2015 seized clothes of the deceased Munesh sent by Medical Officer i.e. banian (Article-I) and underwear (Article-J). On 11.06.2015 he sent samples of viscera, blood and nail clippings of the deceased Munesh received from the Medical Officer to the office of the Chemical Analyzer. On 12.06.2015 when the appellant was in police custody, he seized the clothes of the appellant i.e. shirt and jeans pant in presence of two panch witnesses and prepared seizure panchnama at Exh.57. By requisition letter dated 19.06.2015 (Exh.38) he sent the seized weapon i.e. wooden rafter (Article-B) to the Medical Officer for seeking report. Dr. Harshwardhan Khartade (P.W.4) who conducted the postmortem also examined said wooden rafter (Article-B) and gave weapon report (Exh.39). The reports dated 25.02.2016 issued by the Assistant Chemical Analyzer, Regional Forensic Laboratory, State of Maharashtra, Nagpur at Exh.64 to 67 were received. On 10.06.2015 photographs Article A-1 to A-8 of the place of the incident and the dead body were also taken. Thereafter, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant and the same was committed to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter, the charge at Exh.19 came to be framed against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 203 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution examined nine witnesses, most of whom are referred herein above.
::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 23:02:34 :::
Judgment 8 APL158.2019.odt
7. The case of the prosecution and evidence on record clearly show that this case is of circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has relied on various circumstances. The evidence on record show that the appellant, deceased and two others were residing as tenants in the premises which are situated on the first floor of the house of the P.W.3- informant Purushottam Sayare for about one year before the incident took place. All four of them went to the native place on 20.05.2015 for marriage of relative and appellant and deceased returned back to Nagpur on 06.06.2015. In the intervening night of 09 th and 10th June, 2015 the deceased and appellant were residing in the said premises. P.W.3 Purushottam Sayare had heard noise of quarrel of the deceased and the appellant at about 11.30 pm. on 09.06.2015, but, he ignored the same as there were frequent quarrels between them. The main reason for the quarrel was that the appellant wanted to purchase motor cycle from the parents and the deceased was opposing the same. On 10.06.2015 at about 05.00 am. the appellant knocked the door of house of P.W.3 Purushottam Sayare, therefore P.W.3 Purushottam Sayare and his family members woke up due to said knock and opened the door, at that time the appellant stated that his brother was murdered by somebody and pointed out the dead body of the deceased lying near the compound wall. P.W.3-Purushottam Sayare, P.W.8-Pankaj Sayare and others noticed that the appellant was cleaning the floor of the ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 23:02:34 ::: Judgment 9 APL158.2019.odt premises on the first floor and wiping out the bloodstains on the floor with soaked cloth. In the well near the said house wooden rafter and quilt were recovered and one pillow laying at the distance of 100 mtr. from the place of the dead body was also recovered. In the Postmortem Report Exh.37 conducted by Dr. Harshawardhan Khartade (P.W.4) thirteen injuries were mentioned and the probable cause of death mentioned in the postmortem report is head injury. Dr. Harshawardhan Khartade (P.W.4) also gave report at Exh.39 mentioning that the injuries on the body of the deceased were possible due to said wooden rafter. As per the C. A. Reports at Exh.64 to 67, no bloodstains were detected on sample of simple soil, reddish coloured liquid in plastic bottle (Article-E) jeans (Article-H) of the appellant. However, the blood was detected on the other seized articles i.e. bloodstained soil, cement concrete piece, soaked cloth, wooden rafter, quilt, pillow and clothes of deceased viz. Banian (Article-I) and underwear (Article J) and the same was human blood. Out of these articles blood group 'A' was detected on sample of simple soil, quilt, pillow (Article-D) and underwear (Article -J) of the deceased Munesh. The human blood was also detected on the shirt (Article-G) of the appellant.
8. We find that apart from the various circumstance on record, the learned Trial Court has extensively relied on the C.A. ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 23:02:34 ::: Judgment 10 APL158.2019.odt reports at Exh.64 to 66 and the same is seen from paragraph Nos. 24 to 27, 35 and 36 of the Judgment. The said paragraphs are reproduced herein below for ready reference :
"24] Exh.64 to Exh.66 are the C.A. reports received by Investigating Officer. C.A. report at Exh.64 would show that it is in respect of blood group of the accused. As per this report, the blood group cannot be determined as the results are inconclusive.
25] As per C.A. report (Exh.65), no bloodstain was detected on sample of simple soil, reddish coloured liquid in plastic bottle (Article-E), jeans (Article-H) of the accused. The blood was, however, detected on rest of the seized articles viz. Bloodstained soil, cement concrete piece, soaked cloth, wooden rafter, quilt, pillow and clothes of deceased viz. Banian (Article-I) and underwear (Article-J). That was human blood. Out of these articles blood group 'A' was detected on sample of simple soil, quilt (Article-C), pillow (Article-D) and underwear (Article-J) of the deceased Munesh.
26] As per C.A. report (Exh.66), the blood group of the deceased Munesh was 'A'.
27] C.A. report (Exh.67) is in respect of viscera of the deceased Munesh. As per this report, it does not show any poison in viscera''.
''35] I have already discussed that the seized muddemal properties were sent to the office of C.A. as per requisition letter (Exh.62), in respect of which invoice challan (Exh.63) was received. Moreover, requisition letter (Exh.55) would show that the viscera and blood sample of ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 23:02:34 ::: Judgment 11 APL158.2019.odt the deceased Munesh were sent to the office of C.A. and invoice challan (Exh.56) was received. 36] In respect of the above said muddemal properties C.A. reports at Exh.64 to 67 are there. I have already discussed the contents of the said C.A. reports. The said C.A. reports would show that the blood group of the deceased Munesh is 'A'. The blood sample of the accused is not determined as the results were inconclusive. The human blood was detected on the sample of bloodstained soil, sample of bloodstained cement concrete pieces, soaked cloth (Article- F), wooden rafter (Article-B), quilt (Article-C), pillow (Article-D), shirt (Article-G) of the accused and banian (Article-I) and underwear (Article-J) of the deceased Munesh. More particularly, blood group 'A' was detected on the sample of bloodstained soil, quilt, pillow and underwear of the deceased Munesh. Hence, specific blood group 'A' is not detected on the alleged weapon named wooden rafter. However, human blood was detected on it.
Considering ratio laid down in the citations relied upon by the learned APP, such an infirmity cannot be said to be fatal when only human blood is detected and no blood group is detected."
9. In view of this background of the matter and although the learned Trial Court has passed well reasoned Judgment and given extensive reasons and also recorded very detailed statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure of the appellant, we find that although, chemical analyzer's reports are extensively relied and ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 23:02:34 ::: Judgment 12 APL158.2019.odt rightly so by the learned Trial Court, however, the contents of the same are not put to the appellant during his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The relevant portion of the examination of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is reproduced herein below for ready reference :
"Que.217 It has further come in his evidence that thereafter, as per letter (Exh.62) dated 20.06.2015, he sent seized muddemal property to the office of C.A. through Police Constable Nitin, B. No. 5218. What have you to say about it?
Ans. It is false.
Que. 218 It has further come in his evidence that he received one invoice chalan (Exh.63) for that. What have you to say about it?
Ans. It is false.
Que. 219 It has further come in his evidence that he received in all four C.A. reports (Exh.64 to 67) in this crime. What have you to say about it?
Ans. It is false."
In this behalf, it is also relevant to note the relevant portion of Chemical Analyzer's report at Exh.65, dated 25.02.2016 :
"Description of Articles contained in Parcel/s
1. Earth wrapped in paper labelled - C.
2. Earth wrapped in paper labelled - D.
3. Pieces of cement concrete wrapped in paper labelled - E.
4. Pieces of cement concrete wrapped in paper labelled - F.
5. Reddish coloured liquid in a plastic bottle labelled - G.
6. Bag stated to be pochha wrapped in paper labelled - H. ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 23:02:34 ::: Judgment 13 APL158.2019.odt
7. Wooden log (jkQ~Vj) wrapped in paper labelled - I.
8. Quilt wrapped in paper labelled - J.
9. Pillow in plastic bag wrapped in paper labelled - K.
10. Full shirt wrapped in paper labelled - L.
11. Jeans full pant wrapped in paper labelled - M.
12. Banian put together in card board box labelled -O.
13. Underwear Results of Analysis
- Exhibit (1) is mixed with blood.
- Exhibits 3, 4 and 7 are stained with blood. - Exhibits 6 and 8 are stained with blood and appear to be washed. - Exhibit (9) is stained with blood at places. - Exhibit (10) has moderate number of blood stained ranging from
0.1 to 1 cm in diameter spread mostly on back portion.
- Exhibit (12) has considerable number of blood stains ranging from 0.1 to 2 cm in diameter spread mostly at upper portion of front and back side.
- Exhibit (13) has moderate number of blood stains ranging from 0.1 to 4 cm in diameter spread at places.
- No blood is detected on exhibits 2, 5 and 11.
- Blood detected on exhibits 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13 is
human.
- Exhibits 1, 8, 9 and 13 are stained with a blood of group 'A'.
- Blood group of blood detected on exhibits 3,4,6,7,10 and 12
cannot be determined as the results are inconclusive. "
10. The relevant portion of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is set out herein below for ready reference : ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 23:02:34 :::
Judgment 14 APL158.2019.odt "Section 313. Power to examine the accused - (1) In every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the Court-
(a) .......
(b) shall after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence question him generally on the case :
11. It is settled legal position that duty has been cast on the Court to put to the accused the circumstances appearing in the evidence which are against the accused so that opportunity is given to the accused to personally explain the same. The object is to give accused an opportunity to explain the circumstances that appears against him in the evidence. It is settled legal position that examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cannot be treated as empty formality. If a piece of evidence which is against the accused and conviction is intended to be based upon the same, then it is absolutely essential that the accused is given an opportunity of explaining the same by pointing out the said material to the accused while conducting his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 313(1)(b) is mandatory and casts a duty on the Court to afford an opportunity to the accused to explain the incriminating material against him. It is true that as pointed out by Mrs. S. V. Kolhe, learned APP for the respondent that the learned Trial ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 23:02:34 ::: Judgment 15 APL158.2019.odt Court put up to the appellant the questions regarding C.A. reports. However, the manner in which the said questions are asked are already set out herein above by us. The requirement of Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure is to put to the accused any circumstance appearing in the evidence against him and so that the appellant is given opportunity to explain about the said circumstance. In this case, the circumstances which are appearing in the evidence against the appellant inter alia includes the contents of the C.A. reports which have been set out hereinabove and therefore merely asking that the Investigating Officer has received C.A. reports at Exh.64 to 67 and what you have to say about it, is not the complete compliance with Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. The contents of the said C.A. reports which are one of the incriminating circumstances are required to be put to the accused specifically. It is very significant to note that, the present case is of circumstantial evidence and those circumstances also include the contents of the Chemical Analyzer's report. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that the various circumstances which are against the accused should be put to him and explanation should be called from him.
12. Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is regarding the power of the Appellate Court, Section 386(b) deals with appeal ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 23:02:34 ::: Judgment 16 APL158.2019.odt from conviction and it provides that the Appellate Court in an appeal from conviction can reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused or order him to be re-tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction subordinate to such Appellate Court or committed for trial. The power of the Appellant Court dealing with appeal against conviction is very wide. In this particular case, we noticed that detailed statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded by the Trial Court except the contents of the C.A. reports which is one of the important incriminating circumstances relied upon by the prosecution as well as the Trial Court and the same has not been put to the accused specifically and therefore, there is failure of justice. Therefore, it is necessary that the matter be remanded back to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Nagpur for retrial and the same be decided afresh as per Section 386(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the stage of recording additional statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure.
13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment in the case of Mohd. Hussain Alias Julfikar Ali Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), reported in 2012 (9) SCC 408 in paragraph No.41 while dealing with the power of Appellant Court under Section 386(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure observed as follows :
::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 23:02:34 :::
Judgment 17 APL158.2019.odt "41. The appellate court hearing a criminal appeal from a judgment of conviction has power to order the retrial of the accused under Section 386 of the Code. That is clear from the bare language of Section 386(b). Though such power exists, it should not be exercised in a routine manner. A de novo trial or retrial of the accused should be ordered by the appellate court in exceptional and rare cases and only when in the opinion of the appellate court such course becomes indispensable to avert failure of justice. Surely this power cannot be used to allow the prosecution to improve upon its case or fill up the lacuna. A retrial is not the second trial; it is continuation of the same trial and same prosecution. The guiding factor for retrial must always be demand of justice. Obviously, the exercise of power of retrial under Section 386(b) of the Code, will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case for which no straitjacket formula can be formulated but the appeal court must closely keep in view that while protecting the right of an accused to fair trial and due process, the people who seek protection of law do not lose hope in legal system and the interests of the society are not altogether overlooked." (Emphasis supplied) In this case, the offences with which the appellant is charged are of very serious nature and if the prosecution succeeds and the appellant is convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code the sentence could be death or life imprisonment. We are remanding the case to the Sessions Court just to afford the opportunity to the appellant to explain the evidence as emerged in the C.A. reports. While ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 23:02:34 ::: Judgment 18 APL158.2019.odt remanding the case, we have also taken into consideration that the entire evidence is led by the prosecution and the circumstances which are incriminating are put to the accused extensively under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and questions also regarding the C.A. reports generally in the manner set out herein above are put to the accused. However, the particulars of the C.A. reports particularly the contents of the same which are incriminating against the accused are not put to the accused and therefore, to give opportunity to the appellant to explain the said circumstances, we are exercising our power under Section 386(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure remanding matter for conducting re-trial from the stage of recording additional statement of the appellant-accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure It is significant to note that as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of Mohd. Hussain Alias Julfikar Ali Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), ( cited supra) that re-trial contemplated under Section 386(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not a second trial but it is a continuation of same trial and same prosecution. We are exercising our power under Section 386(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to protect the right of the appellant to fair trial and due process and also keeping in mind the interest of the society. As we have found that certain questions which are to be put to the appellant-accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal ::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 23:02:34 ::: Judgment 19 APL158.2019.odt Procedure, 1973 were not put to him and therefore we are remanding the case and we are not discussing and analyzing in detail the evidence on record. Therefore, we pass the following order :
(A) The impugned judgment and order dated 28.06.2018 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.393/2015 are hereby quashed and set aside.
(B) The case is remanded back to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Nagpur for re-trial and deciding afresh as per Section 386(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure from the stage of recording additional statement of the appellant/accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The learned Sessions Judge, Nagpur to complete the re-trial within a period of two months, as presently the appellant is in custody.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No costs.
(MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE J.)
Kirtak
::: Uploaded on - 20/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 17/03/2020 23:02:34 :::