- (1.) Special leave granted.
(2.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of judicature at Patna dated 18-11-1995 and arises in the following circumstances: in Sessions Trial No. 39 of 1993, 25 persons including the appellants herein were sent up for trial for offences under Sections 302, 302/149 and 396 IPC before the learned Sessions Judge, Jehanabad. The trial court acquitted four accused of all the charges and the remaining 21 accused (the appellants herein) of the charges under Sections 302 and 302/149 IPC. The appellants were, however, convicted for the offence under Section 396 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Against their conviction and sentence, the appellants filed an appeal in the High Court. During the hearing of the appeal, it came to the notice of the High Court that the statements of the appellants except that of appellant Janak Yadav had not been recorded under Section 313 Crpc. The High Court in this connection observed: "During the hearing of the appeals, it came to the notice of the Court that the statement of the accused-appellants (except that of Janak Yadav) have not been recorded. The trial Judge, Shri Ghanshyam Prasad, additional Sessions Judge II, Jehanabad who finally examined the records for preparing and delivering the judgment in the case too did not care to look into the alleged statement of the accused persons, if any, on record. Equally it was the judicial duty of the trial Judge who was to deliver the judgment finally in the case to look into all the records including the statement of the accused persons for taking them into consideration in the award of the judgment. This is a lapse on the part of shri Ghanshyam Prasad, Additional Sessions Judge II, Jehanabad in his judicial work. "
(3.) The High Court took the view that the non-examination of 20 appellants under Section 313 Crpc "is a basic illegality in the trial" and held that "it has been an unfair trial". The High Court consequently set aside the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court on 14-12-1989 and remanding the case to the trial court, ordered retrial of the case. The learned sessions Judge, Jehanabad was directed to conduct the trial expeditiously. The High Court also directed "the Sessions Judge shall be examining the case diary and shall be framing appropriate charges afresh relating to murder and dacoity or murder or dacoity as the evidence collected, by the investigation warrants to the case. . " and then proceed with the trial.;