JUDGMENT : I.A. ANSARI, J. 1. The instant appeal has been filed by the accused-appellant, Mithilesh Singh, against judgment of conviction, dated 20.02.2013, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jehanabad, in Sessions Trial No. 104 of 2011 and 133 of 2011, arising out of Karpi P.S. Case No. 107 of 2004, pertaining to G.R. No. 1857 of 2004. Following his conviction, the accused-appellant, Mithilesh Singh, has been sentenced, by order, dated 22.02.2013, to suffer imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand), and, in default, to pay the fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year, and, for his conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, the accused-appellant, Mithilesh Singh, has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay a fine of Rs.500/- and, in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment of three months. However, both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded at the trial, may, in brief, be described as follows:- (i) On 19.11.2004, at about 7.00 P.M., when Deepak Singh, son of the informant, Ram Pravesh Singh, while arranging generator and light in the compound of Suraj Mandir on the occasion of concluding ceremony of Chhath Pooja, reached near the house of Ramashraya Singh and was fixing tube lights, then, accused Ram Chandra Singh @ Jethu Singh (since acquitted) questioned Deepak Singh as to why tube light had not been fixed at his (Ram Chandra Singh) house and he (Ram Chandra Singh) also threatened that he would break all tube lights if tube lights were not arranged in front of his house too. (ii) Because of the way accused Ram Chandra Singh had agitated and threatened Deepak Singh, an altercation followed. However, elders in the locality told accused Ram Chandra Singh that since it was a social function, the arrangement of lighting shall not be disturbed. Ram Chandra Singh and his sons, namely, Niraj Kumar @ Niraj Singh and Ranjeet Singh (i.e. the appellants herein), took out pistols and threatened to kill Deepak. However, elders in the locality told accused Ram Chandra Singh that since it was a social function, the arrangement of lighting shall not be disturbed. Ram Chandra Singh and his sons, namely, Niraj Kumar @ Niraj Singh and Ranjeet Singh (i.e. the appellants herein), took out pistols and threatened to kill Deepak. In the meanwhile, local Mukhia (i.e. headman of the village), Vikrant Singh, came and told those, who were organizing cultural programme, that local M.L.A. would come to inaugurate the cultural programme and, at his reception, a dinner should be organized. For the purpose of making arrangement for dinner, Deepak Singh, his brother, Nagendra Singh @ Kariman, Manish Singh and Pintu Singh @ Dara, were deputed. (iii) At about 8.00 P.M., on 19.11.2004, Nagendra Singh @ Kariman, Manish Singh and Pintu Singh @ Dara went to the shop of one Lalan Sao for purchasing spices and onion. After purchasing the said materials, when Nagendra Singh came out of the said shop, accused Mithilesh Singh @ Dhananjay Singh, Niraj Singh and Ranjit Singh, who were standing in the lane and watching them armed with country made pistols, shouted that they had come out and, then, accused Mithilesh Singh fired from his pistol on Nagendra Singh. The bullet hit the chest of Nagendra Singh @ Kariman. Nagendra Singh fell down and the said three accused, who were present along with Ram Chandra Singh, fled away. The injured, namely, Nagendra Singh, was taken to Karpi Hospital, where the doctor declared him dead. (iv) One Ram Kumar Singh, the driver of the local M.L.A., came to Karpi police station and informed there that a young boy had been shot dead. Based on this information, Sanha (Station Diary) Entry No. 357, dated 19.11.2004, at 9.20 P.M., (Exhibit 2) was made. Acting on the information, so received, Officer-in-Charge, Karpi Police Station (P.W.-9), rushed to the said Karpi hospital. Inquest was held over the said dead body, which was also subjected to post mortem examination. (v) On 19.11.2004, fardbeyan was lodged, at the said police station, at 11.30 P.M., by Ram Pravesh Singh (P.W. 8), father of the said deceased. Acting on the information, so received, Officer-in-Charge, Karpi Police Station (P.W.-9), rushed to the said Karpi hospital. Inquest was held over the said dead body, which was also subjected to post mortem examination. (v) On 19.11.2004, fardbeyan was lodged, at the said police station, at 11.30 P.M., by Ram Pravesh Singh (P.W. 8), father of the said deceased. Based on this fardbeyan and treating the same as First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as ‘the F.I.R.’) Karpi P.S. Case No. 107 of 2004, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, was registered against accused Ram Chandra Singh @ Jattu Singh, Niraj Singh, Ranjit Singh and Mithilesh Singh @ Dhananjay Singh. 3. On completion of investigation, a charge sheet was laid, under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, against accused, Ram Chandra Singh @ Jattu Singh, Niraj Singh and Ranjit Singh. No charge sheet was submitted against accused Mithilesh Singh @ Dhananjay Singh, on the ground that he (accused Mithilesh Singh @ Dhananjay Singh) had been absconding. Upon submission of the charge sheet as mentioned hereinbefore, accused Ram Chandra Singh @ Jattu Singh, Niraj Singh and accused Ranjit Singh were put on trial. 4. When a charge, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, was framed against the said three accused, they all pleaded not guilty. In addition thereto, a charge, under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, was also framed against the said three accused persons. To the charge so framed, all the said three accused pleaded not guilty. 5. In support of their case, prosecution examined altogether 10 witnesses including the Investigating Officer (P.W. 9), namely, Vimal Kumar Verma, and the doctor (P.W. 10) Dr. R.P. Ojha, who had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Nagendra Singh. 6. All the said three accused were, then, examined under Section 313 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, in their examinations aforementioned, all the said three accused denied that they had committed the offences, which were alleged to have committed by them. It was the further case of the defence that Nagendra Singh was killed by extremists. No evidence was, however, adduced by the defence. 7. It was the further case of the defence that Nagendra Singh was killed by extremists. No evidence was, however, adduced by the defence. 7. The trial of the said three accused, namely, Ram Chandra Singh @ Jattu Singh, Niraj Singh and Ranjit Singh, was concluded by judgment, dated 28.01.2006, whereby two of the accused, namely, Niraj Singh and Ranjit Singh, were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. While accused Niraj Singh and Ranjit Singh were so convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, accused Ram Chandra Singh was acquitted. Following their conviction, as mentioned hereinbefore, the two convicted persons, namely, Niraj Singh and Ranjit Singh, were sentenced, vide order, dated 31.01.2006, to suffer imprisonment for life. 8. Aggrieved by their conviction and the sentences passed against them, the two convicted persons, namely, Niraj Singh and Ranjit Singh, have preferred jointly an appeal, which has given rise to Criminal Appeal (D.B) No. 239 of 2006. 9. Subsequent to the trial and conviction of Niraj Singh and Ranjit Singh, accused Mithilesh Singh was apprehended and produced in the learned Court below on 27.04.2007. On the case being committed to the Court of Sessions, charges were framed against accused Mithilesh Singh, on 27.04.2011, under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959. To the charges so framed, accused Mithilesh Singh pleaded not guilty. 10. In support of their case, prosecution, at the trial of accused Mithilesh Singh @ Dhananjay Singh, altogether examined 12 witnesses, namely, Deepak Singh (P.W. 1), Pintu Singh @ Dara Singh @ Pintu Kumar (P.W. 2), Ram Janam Singh (P.W. 3), Ram Bashisht Singh (P.W. 4), Kamlesh Prasad (P.W. 5), Manish Kumar (P.W. 6), Birendra Singh (P.W. 7), Akhilesh Singh (P.W. 8), Rinku Kumar (P.W. 9) Sakaleep Singh (P.W.10), Ram Pravesh Singh (P.W. 11), and Ramashraya Singh (P.W. 12). 11. Accused Mithilesh Singh was, then, examined under Section 313 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In his examination aforementioned, he (accused Mithilesh Singh @ Dhananjay Singh) denied that he had committed the offences, which were alleged to have committed by him, his case being that of denial. No evidence was adduced by the defence. 12. 11. Accused Mithilesh Singh was, then, examined under Section 313 (1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In his examination aforementioned, he (accused Mithilesh Singh @ Dhananjay Singh) denied that he had committed the offences, which were alleged to have committed by him, his case being that of denial. No evidence was adduced by the defence. 12. Having found accused Mithilesh Singh guilty of the offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, the learned trial Court has convicted him accordingly and passed sentences against him as mentioned above. 13. Aggrieved by his conviction and the sentences passed against him, the accused Mithilesh Singh, as convicted person, has preferred the present appeal, namely, Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 254 of 2013. 14. We have heard Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Sinha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, and Mr. S. C. Mishra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 15. While considering the present appeal, it needs to be noted and it has been pointed out, on behalf of accused-appellant, namely, Mithilesh Singh, that Dr. R.P. Ojha, who had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Nagendra Singh, and Sub-Inspector of Police, Vimal Kumar Verma, who had conducted investigation, were examined as PW 9 and PW 10, in Sessions Trial No. 205 of 2005 (126 of 2005), but these two witnesses have not been examined in the subsequent trial, namely, S.T. No. 104 of 2011/133 of 2011, i.e., the trial held against the present appellant, Mithilesh Singh, and although these two witnesses were not examined, their evidence, given in the earlier trial, namely, Sessions Trial No. 205 of 2005 and 126 of 2005, have been used and relied upon by the learned trial Court in order to convict the accused-appellant, Mithilesh Singh, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959. 16. The fact that Dr. R.P. Ojha, who had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Nagendra Singh, and the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vimal Kumar Verma, who had conducted investigation, have not been examined as witnesses, in the present trial, held against the present appellant, Mithilesh Singh, is not in dispute before us. 17. 16. The fact that Dr. R.P. Ojha, who had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Nagendra Singh, and the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vimal Kumar Verma, who had conducted investigation, have not been examined as witnesses, in the present trial, held against the present appellant, Mithilesh Singh, is not in dispute before us. 17. We have perused the relevant record including the impugned judgment and we notice that though the said two witnesses, namely, Dr. R.P. Ojha and Vimal Kumar Verma, were not examined at the trial of the present appellant, Mithilesh Singh, the evidence of the said two witnesses, given in the earlier trial, have been relied upon in the trial, held against the present appellant, Mithilesh Singh, for the purpose of founding conviction of the accused-appellant. 18. Without examining Dr. R.P. Ojha and Vimal Kumar Verma, at the present trial, against the present appellant, Mithilesh Singh, the evidence, given in Sessions Trial No. 205 of 2005 (126 of 2005), by Doctor R.P. Ojha and Vimal Kumar Verma, could not have been legally used. Had the accused-appellant, Mithilesh Singh, absconded in the midst of the earlier trial, then, the evidence, given by the doctor and the Investigating Officer, namely, Dr. R.P. Ojha and S.I. Vimal Kumar Verma, could have been used by taking recourse to Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 19. Considering the fact that the doctor and Investigating Officer, namely, Dr. R.P. Ojha and S.I. Vimal Kumar Verma, were not only relevant, but extremely important for the purpose of determining the guilt or otherwise of the present accused-appellant, namely, Mithilesh Singh, the said two witnesses ought to have been examined at the trial of the present appellant so that their evidence could have been used. 20. Thus, non-examination of the said two witnesses has been a serious lapse on the part of the prosecution and also the learned trial Court. In this regard, we may point out that in order to obtain the presence of the doctor and the Investigating Officer, the learned trial Court could have exercised its power under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 21. In this regard, we may point out that in order to obtain the presence of the doctor and the Investigating Officer, the learned trial Court could have exercised its power under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 21. The ends of justice, therefore, require that the conviction of the accused-appellant, namely, Mithilesh Singh, and the sentences passed against him be set aside and the case be remanded to the learned trial Court with direction to call the doctor and the Investigation Officer, namely, Dr. R.P. Ojha and S.I. Vimal Kumar Verma, as witnesses, and, upon recording their evidence, the case ought to be disposed of, in accordance with law, by examining appropriately the accused-appellant, Mithilesh Singh, in terms of the requirements of Section 313 (1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 22. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, we set aside the conviction of the accused-appellant, namely, Mithilesh Singh, by the judgment and order, under appeal, and also the sentences, which stand impugned in this appeal, and remand the case to the learned trial Court with direction to obtain presence of the doctor and the Investigating Officer, namely, Dr. R.P. Ojha and S.I. Vimal Kumar Verma and, then, dispose of the case, in accordance with law, by appropriately examining the accused-appellant, namely, Mithilesh Singh, under Section 313 (1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and after allowing him to adduce evidence if the accused-appellant so wishes. 23. Considering the matter in its entirety and the in the interest of justice, we make it clear that though the conviction of the appellant, namely, Mithilesh Singh and the sentences passed against him have been set aside, he shall be detained in custody until his trial is concluded in accordance with law and his release or further detention in custody shall be governed by the outcome of the trial. 24. We further direct that the trial against the present appellant shall be proceeded with expeditiously and concluded, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the Lower Court Records by the learned trial Court with a copy of the judgment and order. 25. With the above observations and directions, this appeal stands disposed of. 26. Let the relevant records of the case, along with a copy of this judgment and order, be sent back to the learned trial Court.