Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010204162022 2026:GAU-AS:197- DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.A./174/2023 PRADIP LAKRA AND 4 ORS. S/O BISWANATH LAKRA VILL.- MADHYAM DAKHINGAON P.O. AND P.S.- RUNIKHATA IN THE DISTRICT OF CHIRANG ASSAM PIN- 783375. 2: SUNIL KUJUR @ MAGURU S/O BOWA KUJUR VILL.- MADHYAM DAKHINGAON P.O. AND P.S.- RUNIKHATA IN THE DISTRICT OF CHIRANG ASSAM PIN- 783375 3: HEMANTA MINZ S/O MOHADEV MINZ VILL.- DAKHIN DAKHINGAON P.O. AND P.S.- RUNIKHATA IN THE DISTRICT OF CHIRANG ASSAM PIN- 783375. 4: BIKRAM KHALKO S/O BARU KHALKO VILL.- MADHYAM DAKHINGAON P.O. AND P.S.- RUNIKHATA IN THE DISTRICT OF CHIRANG ASSAM PIN- 783375. Page No.# 2/5 5: BIKRAM TIGGA S/O LATE JHARIA TIGGA VILL.- MADHYAM DAKHINGAON P.O. AND P.S.- RUNIKHATA IN THE DISTRICT OF CHIRANG ASSAM PIN- 783375. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. REP. BY THE P.P. ASSAM. 2:SRI KAMALESWAR TOPPO S/O SUKRA TOPPO VILL.- DAKHIN DAKHINGAON P.O. AND P.S.- RUNIKHATA IN THE DISTRICT OF CHIRANG ASSAM PIN- 783375 ------------ Advocate for : MR. M KALITA Advocate for : PP ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 07.01.2026 (M. Zothankhuma, J) Heard Mr. A Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. R R Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State. 2. This is an appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 30.01.2023 and sentence dated 03.02.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chirang, Kajalgaon in Sessions Case no. 08/2021 by which the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC read with Sections 324/34 IPC. Page No.# 3/5 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC read with Sections 324/34 IPC, without the trial being conducted by a public prosecutor. He submits that from the time of framing of charge till conviction of the appellants by the learned Trial Court, no public prosecutor/additional public prosecutor had appeared to conduct the prosecution on behalf of the State. The learned Trial Judge acted as a prosecutor and had taken the evidence of the prosecution witnesses during the examination-in-chief of the witnesses. He thus submits that the learned Trial Judge acted as a prosecutor and judge in the case and as such, the conviction made by the learned Trial Court should be interfered with. 4. Mr. R R Kaushik, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that he has no quarrel with the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants, to the effect that no public prosecutor/additional public prosecutor had conducted the prosecution case before the learned Trial Court. The learned Presiding Judge had acted as the prosecutor and judge in the case. In view of the above, the entire criminal trial, including recording of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, was vitiated. He submits that the same being in violation of Section 225 CrPC, the impugned judgment should be set aside and re-trial should be initiated by the learned Trial Court. 5. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 6. Section 225 of CrPC states as follows – “In every trial before a Court of Session, the prosecution shall be conducted by a Public Prosecutor.” 7. Perusal of Section 225 CrPC shows that in every trial before a Court of Page No.# 4/5 Sessions, the prosecution is to be conducted by a public prosecutor. The present case being a murder case, a public prosecutor was necessary to conduct the trail proceedings before the learned Trial Court. However, the same had not been done. No public prosecutor/additional public prosecutor had participated in the trial proceedings, from the time of framing of charge under Sections 302/34 IPC read with Sections 324/34 IPC till conviction of the appellants, by way of the impugned judgment dated 30.01.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chirang, Kajalgaon in Sessions Case No. 08/2021. 8. When there has been a breach of Section 225 of the CrPC in conducting the trial proceedings, wherein the learned Judge conducted the duties of the prosecutor, in the absence of any public prosecutor/additional public prosecutor, the trial proceedings, which included the recording of the evidence of the witnesses, would have to be deemed to be vitiated. 9. The present case being a case relating to murder, which is a very serious case that could lead to a sentence of life imprisonment or death, we are of the view that the conviction of the appellants by the learned Trial Court in violation of Section 225 of the CrPC is not sustainable in law. 10. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 30.01.2023 and sentence dated 03.02.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chirang, Kajalgaon in Sessions Case no. 08/2021 is set aside. 11. The above being said, we are of the view that when the guilt or innocence of the accused is to be decided with respect to a serious and heinous crimes, it would be appropriate for the learned Trial Court to have a re-trail of the case in terms of Section 225 CrPC, from the stage of framing of charge and recording of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in the presence of the public Page No.# 5/5 prosecutor/additional public prosecutor. 12. The learned Trial Court is accordingly directed to re-try the case, after restarting the trial from the stage of framing of charge of the appellants. 13. The appellants’ prayer for bail would have to be decided by the learned Trial Court. 14. Send back the TCR. 15. The appeal is accordingly disposed of, remanding the matter back to the learned Trial Court for retrial. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant Pranab Kumar Deka Digitally signed by Pranab Kumar Deka Date: 2026.01.07 17:00:01 +05'30'