Jagdish vs State of U.P.

Shiv Shanker, J.—This is the first bail application moved on behalf of the applicant Jagdish before this Court regarding his involvement in Case Crime No. 120 of 2005, S.T. No. 637 of 2005, under Sections 302, 506 and 120B, I.P.C., Police Station Balder, district Mathura.

According to the prosecution case, in brief, as per the F.I.R. is that Balveer Singh, informant lodged the F.I.R. on 19.7.2005 at 7.15 a.m. against accused Keshav Singh alias Kesho, Bhoori Singh alias Bhoora, Surendra Singh, Jagdish Singh and Ghanshyam wherein it was stated that one arms factory was found in the forest of his village by police. Consequently, co-accused Ghanshyam and his companion had annoyed and there was doubt upon Ranveer Singh and Devendra Singh regarding it. Due to this reason, on 19.7.2005 at about 6.30 a.m. his brother Ranveer Singh alongwith his wife Smt. Guddi Devi and his daughter Km. Asha were going to Nohrey from the house and reached at in front of house of Ghanshyam accused where accused persons Keshav Singh alias Kesho, Bhoori Singh alias Bhoora, Surendra Singh and Jagdish Singh, who were sitting already with rifle and country-made pistols and made firing upon Ranveer Singh. Consequently, he died on the spot due to sustaining firearm injury. Thereafter, they fled away from there after extending threats.

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

It is contended by learned Counsel for the applicant that there was no motive against the applicant.

It is further contended that no specific weapon has been assigned to any accused in the F.I.R. During the course of statement before the trial court on 19.7.2005, witnesses specified the weapons as follows: "That the co-accused Keshav was armed with a rifle and rest of the accused persons were armed with tamancha likewise the other prosecution witnesses also changed their stand during their statements before the learned trial court and according to them 8-10 shots were made but there are only 3 firearm wound of entry which clearly demonstrate that they were not present at the time of occurrence.

It is further contended that three persons are said to have been going together but none of them received any injury except the deceased which create serious doubt about the presence of the alleged eye witnesses of the occurrence. It is further contended that medical report also falsified the prosecution witnesses as there is material contradiction between the medical evidence and the ocular evidence. Deceased was a man of criminal tendencies. Therefore, there were so many enemies against him and it is quite possible that some of his enemies might have murdered him in the dark night and nobody seen the actual culprits. This fact also found support from the statement of P.W. 3 doctor B. D. Bhaskar, who, in his cross-examination specifically stated that "Yah sahi hai ki postmortem ke anusar martak ki mrityu 1.30 baje ratri dinank 19.7.2005 ko ho sakti hai.

It is further contended that he was not the accused regarding raid of factory of countrymade pistols. Deceased was hardened criminal. There is criminal history of five cases as mentioned in para 13 of the bail application.

All the witnesses of fact have already been examined and there is material contradiction in the medical evidence as well as the ocular evidence and the F.I.R. is ante-timed and ante-dated. In such circumstances, bail application is liable to be allowed.

On the other hand, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. that this is the case of direct evidence of a broad day light murder supported with the medical evidence. No witnesses have been declared hostile by trial court. All the facts witnesses also supported the prosecution case.

This incident had already taken place on 15.7.2005 at 6.30 a.m. while the F.I.R was lodged on the same day at 7.15 a.m. within 45 minutes. There is no delay in lodging the F.I.R. wherein the present applicant is also named alongwith four accused persons.

It has been mentioned in the F.I.R. as well as statements of prosecution witnesses including the statements recorded in the Court as P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 that present applicant alongwith four companions were already present in the house of co-accused Ghanshyam armed with rifle and countrymade pistols. After seeing Ranveer Singh, they made firing upon him. Consequently, he died on the spot. Post mortem report of the deceased reveals that three gun shots of entry were found on the deadbody of the deceased. He was murdered by accused in prosecution of common object of such assembly. Therefore, there will be no effect if the number of injuries is lesser than the number of assailants. This is the case of broad day light murder of direct evidence. All the fact witnesses have been examined. None has been declared hostile. Therefore, testimony of prosecution witnesses cannot be appreciated at this stage. Moreover, they have not been declared hostile and stated about the prosecution story. On that basis, prima facie case is made out.

This is the case of direct evidence, motive has been given in the F.I.R. that the present applicant is the companion of one Ghanshyam. Due to police raid of factory, wherein unlicensed arms were manufactured. The co-accused Ghanshyam and his companion doubted upon the deceased and one Devendra Singh. Due to this enmity, he was murdered. Mere criminal history against the deceased, which is not liable to be deemed that the applicant and his companion have no right to commit the murder of the deceased. This is the case of a broad day light murder. It is not expected from the witnesses to implicate the false person by sparing the real culprits. The intention of the accused was to commit the murder of the deceased and in the mere absence of any injury on the person of prosecution witnesses, their presence cannot be doubted at the time of alleged occurrence.

After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made on behalf of learned Counsel for both the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, his bail application is not liable to be allowed.

Hence, bail application of Jagdish is hereby rejected.