Jitendra Valmiki @ Jitendra vs State of U.P.

Heard learned Counsel for the appellants Jitendra Valmiki @ Jitendra, Pooja and Dileep Balmiki and learned Additional Government Advocate on the applications for bail moved u/s 389 Code of Criminal Procedure in the above mentioned three appeals. Appellants Jitendra Valmiki @ Jitendra, Pooja and Dileep Balmiki have preferred these appeals against judgment and order dated 19.02.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. III, Lucknow in Sessions Trial No. 160 of 2007 arising out of crime No. 399 of 2006 under Sections 302/34 & 201 IPC of Police Station Ghazipur, district Lucknow and sentencing them to the maximum term of life imprisonment with fine.

Since all the appeals arise out of the same judgment and order, as such, we propose to dispose of the applications u/s 389 Code of Criminal Procedure by this common order.

An First Information Report was lodged by one Suresh Chandra on 22.07.2006 at police station Ghazipur, district Lucknow mentioning that his brother Ramesh Chandra Rastogi was residing at C-29, Indira Nagar, Lucknow. Ramesh Chandra was untraceable for last many days and his whereabouts could not be found. The neighbours of Ramesh Chandra Rastogi informed the complainant that the main door of the house of Ramesh Chandra Rastogi was locked from outside. On suspicion, the lock was broken and on entering inside the house, he found blood splattered in the drawing room and the blood drops trailed towards the court yard on the back of the house. The earth of the court yard was digged and attempt to refill it was made.

On information being received, the police reached at the spot and on removing the earth, dead body of Ramesh Chandra Rastogi was discovered.

Initially, the First Information Report was lodged against unknown persons, but during the course of investigation, complicity of the appellants came into light. Post mortem of the dead body was conducted and the doctor found seven injuries on the person of the deceased.

Submission of learned Counsel for the appellants is that conviction of the appellants has been made solely on the basis of alleged extra judicial confession made before the police and there is no other evidence on record to connect the appellants with the offence. It is submitted that the prosecution has tried to develop a flimsy story that the deceased was having illicit relations with appellant Pooja and this was the motive for the appellants to have committed the crime. Learned Counsel further submitted that the motive as set up, in the absence of any corroborative evidence on record, is not clinching and sufficient to convict and sentence the appellants for the offence of committing murder of the deceased. He further submitted that recovery of the articles/weapons of assault as provided in Section 27 of the Evidence Act, are not such with which the offence could have been committed since the articles as mentioned by the prosecution are Sansi (an iron house hold item used for holding hot pots) screwdriver and candle stand.

Learned Additional Government Advocate could not argue anything to rebut the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellants.

Considering the overall aspect of the matter, we are of the view that the appellants deserve to be released on bail.

Let appellants Jitendra Valmiki @ Jitendra, Pooja and Dileep Balmik, convicts of above mentioned Sessions Trial be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow.

Realization of half of the fine is stayed. Remaining half of fine shall be deposited by the appellants within one month from the date of their release on bail.

Chief Judicial Magistrate shall transmit to this Court photo copies of the bail and surety bonds furnished by the appellants to be placed on the record of the appeals.