JUDGMENT A.P. LAVANDE, J. Heard Mr. R.M. Daga, learned Advocate for the appel1ant and Mr. M.K. Pathan, learned APP for the respondent. 2. This appeal was admitted on 14th January 2013 after hearing learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned APP for respondent. 3. In the course of hearing of bail application bearing (APPA) No. 23 of 2013 filed by the appellant, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that no conviction of the appellant could have been recorded for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, since the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added at the fag end of the tria1. Mr. Daga further submitted that it would be just and proper to set aside the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and remand the matter to the learned Trial Court for fresh disposal since no reasonable opportunity was given to the appellant to cross examine the prosecution witnesses in respect of the new charge framed at the fag end of the trial. According to Mr. Daga, though pursis was filed by the appellant - accused as also by the prosecution stating that they do not want to lead any evidence in the matter, it would be just and proper to set aside the Judgment and order of conviction and remand the matter for fresh disposal in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of leading evidence to the accused as well as to the prosecution. 4. Mr. Pathan, learned APP for the respondent submitted that interest of justice could be served by setting aside the conviction and remanding the matter for fresh disposal inasmuch as it would be appropriate even for the prosecution to lead further evidence in the mater in respect of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In support of his submission, Mr. Pathan, learned APP relied upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court, in the case of Pralhad Ramji Surjuse & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2004(1) Crimes 453 : [2004 ALL MR (Cri) 955]. 5. With the consent of Learned Counsel for the appellant and learned APP, the appeal is taken up for hearing. 6. Pathan, learned APP relied upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court, in the case of Pralhad Ramji Surjuse & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2004(1) Crimes 453 : [2004 ALL MR (Cri) 955]. 5. With the consent of Learned Counsel for the appellant and learned APP, the appeal is taken up for hearing. 6. Perusal of the record discloses that the appellant along with one Smt. Lalita @ Bali Manoj Nandekar was charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 306, 498-A, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal and alternatively under Section 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Initially, both the accused were charged for the offences except under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. However, just before the date fixed for arguments, the prosecution filed an application i.e. on 19-5-2012 for alteration of charge and sought addition of charge under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. The learned Trial Judge passed order on 11-6-2012 allowing the said application. Additional charge was explained to both the accused on 12-6-2012. Thereafter, the prosecution and the accused filed pursis stating that they do not want to lead any further evidence 8. The Trial Court by the impugned Judgment and order dated 24-12-2012 convicted the appellant - original accused no. 1 of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted the original accused no. 2 of all the offences. 9. In view of the above, it is evident that the charge under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed and explained to both the accused at the fag end of the trial and no witnesses were examined thereafter to. 10. We find merit in the submission of Mr. Daga and the concession made by the learned Asstt. Public Prosecutor that the matter deserves to be remanded against the appellant only since the issue is squarely covered by the Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pralhad Ramji Surjuse, [2004 ALL MR (Cri) 955] (supra). 10. We find merit in the submission of Mr. Daga and the concession made by the learned Asstt. Public Prosecutor that the matter deserves to be remanded against the appellant only since the issue is squarely covered by the Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Pralhad Ramji Surjuse, [2004 ALL MR (Cri) 955] (supra). In our considered opinion, it would be just and proper to give an opportunity to the prosecution as well as to the accused to lead evidence, if any, in support of the additional charge framed under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. However, in so far as the original accused no. 2 is concerned, the acquittal has become final and as such, we are not in a position to disturb the same. 12. In view of the above, we pass the following order. ORDER (I) The conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No. 501 of 2011 and the sentence imposed upon him are quashed and set aside. (II) The Trial Court shall give an opportunity to the prosecution to lead the evidence, if any, in support of the Charge under Sections 302 & 201 of the Indian Penal Code and also give an opportunity to the accused to cross examine the witnesses who are already examined and who may be examined after remand and also to examine the defence witnesses, if any. (III) The learned Trial Judge shall dispose of the Sessions Trial No. 501 of 2012 expeditiously in any case within a period of six months from the date of appearance. (IV) The appellant, who is presently in Central Jail, Nagpur, shall be produced before the Trial Court on 7-3-20 I 3. (V) At this stage, Mr. Daga, learned Counsel for the appellant states that since the appellant was on bail pending trial, when his conviction is set aside, it would be appropriate to release the applicant on bail. Mr. Pathan, learned APP concedes that the appellant was on bail pending the trial. (V) At this stage, Mr. Daga, learned Counsel for the appellant states that since the appellant was on bail pending trial, when his conviction is set aside, it would be appropriate to release the applicant on bail. Mr. Pathan, learned APP concedes that the appellant was on bail pending the trial. (VI) In view of this position, the appellant shall be released upon executing a fresh bail bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Judge and subject to the condition that he shall appear before the learned Trial Judge during trial. Ordered accordingly.