Raj Beer Singh,J. - (1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 11.05.1982 passed by the Special Sessions Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Farrukhabad in Special Session Trial No. 09 of 1982, under Sections 399, 402 IPC and 25/27 Arms Act (State v. Harish Chandra and three others) whereby accused appellant Harish Chandra and Ramshanker along with accused Bachchan were convicted under Sections 399, 402 IPC and Section 25/27 Arms Act and they were sentenced as under: JUDGEMENT_102_LAWS(ALL)4_2020_1.html All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
(2.) Appeal of co-accused Bachchan (Criminal Appeal No. 1272 of 1982) has already been abated.
(3.) At the outset, it may be mentioned that this appeal was admitted in the month of May 1982 and record of trial Court was summoned by this Court vide order dated 10.05.2016 but only the impugned judgment has been sent and it was informed by report dated 09.09.2016 of trial Court that except judgment, no other record is available and efforts are being made to reconstruct the record. As per letter dated 14.09.2016, again it was informed that some time may be granted for reconstruction of record. District Judge, Farrukhabad vide letter dated 07.07.2016 has informed that except impugned judgment, other documents of record, were weeded out and that efforts are being made for reconstruction of record. District Judge Farrukhabad vide letter dated 10.11.2016 has informed that there is no possibility of reconstruction of record of trial Court. District Judge, Farrukhabad vide letter dated 07.04.2017 has informed that despite serious efforts reconstruction of record could not take place and that reconstruction of record is not possible. In view of various letters sent along with reports of Court concerned and District Judge, Farrukhabad, it appears that efforts were made for reconstruction of record but it could not be possible. As this appeal was pending since 1982 and thus, it was felt that appeal be decided finally. ;