Ram Chander (In Jail) vs State of U.P.

Ravindra Singh, J.—This application has been filed by the applicant Ram Chander with a prayer that he may be released on bail in Case Crime No. 242 of 2006, u/s 302 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) of S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, P.S. Pannuganj, District Sonbhadra.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Smt. Geera Devi at Police Station Pannuganj on 13.5.2006 at 7.30 A.M. in respect of the incident which had occurred in the night of 12/13.5.2006 at about 12 O''clock. The distance of the Police Station was 14 kl.mts. from the alleged place of the occurrence. The P.I.R. was lodged against the applicant, co-accused Valli, co-accused Bechan and co-accused Vedmani alleging there in that in the night of 12/13.5.2006 the deceased Dinesh was sleeping on a cot outside the house at about 12 O''clock the applicant armed with axe co-accused Valli, Bechan and Vedmani armed with Lathi, Danda and knife came at the place of the occurrence and the co-accused Valli, Bechan and Vedmani caught hold the deceased and the applicant caused injury by using axe blows on the head and neck of the deceased. The first informant was also sleeping at a short distance, who flashed the torch light and saw the applicant and other co-accused persons who ran away towards the north side after committing the alleged offence. According to the post-mortem examination report, the deceased had received two ante-mortem incised wounds and during investigation at the pointing out of the applicant one blood stained axe has been recovered from the bridge at about 5.30 P.M.

Heard Sri H.N. Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant, and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant:

(1) That the alleged occurrence had taken place in the dark hours of the night, at the time of the alleged occurrence the deceased was sleeping on a cot outside the house, which was an open place, some body came in the night and caused Injury and ran away but in the morning the dead body was found. Thereafter the F.I.R. was lodged at 7.30 A.M. on 13.5.2006. It was a pure hit and ran affairs:

(2) That the presence of the first informant and other witnesses at the alleged place of occurrence is highly doubtful. Even according to the prosecution version, the applicant and other co-accused persons were seen in torch light after commission of the alleged offence which makes the whole prosecution story doubtful and there is no independent witness to support the prosecution story. The witnesses are family members of the deceased:

(3) That during investigation the recovery of axe has been planted which was not supported by any independent witness.

(4) That there was no motive or intention for the applicant to come it the alleged offence:

(5) That on the day of the alleged occurrence the applicant was not present at the place of the occurrence, he was attending the marriage ceremony of his nephew Sanjay Kumar:

(6) That the prosecution story is not corroborated by the medical evidence, the deceased had received two ante-mortem incised wounds, the dimension of both injuries was not same, it shows that both injuries were not caused by one weapon whereas according to the prosecution version, the injuries were caused only by the applicant by axe:

(7) That the applicant is a man of peace loving and he is not involved in any other criminal case and there is no chance of his absconding or tampering with the evidence. Therefore he may be released on bail.

In reply to the above contentions, the learned A.G.A. submits that according to the prosecution version, the applicant caused injury on the person of the deceased by using axe blows and deceased had received two incised wounds, nature of injuries shows that both the injuries were caused by axe, the dimension of both injuries may not be same caused by one weapon because the dimension of injuries varies on the basis of its seat of the injuries. The applicant has been properly identified in the torch light by the natural witnesses who are mentioned in the F.I.R., their presence was not doubtful in the present case, the applicant and some other co-accused persons came at the alleged place of the occurrence and the deceased was caught hold by the other co-accused persons and injuries were caused by using axe blows, near the place of occurrence the first informant and other witnesses were also sleeping, they saw the accused persons and at the pointing out of the applicant the blood stained axe has been recovered on 14.5.2006 i.e. next day of the F.I.R. from the bridge in the presence of many villagers but they were not prepared to become witnesses of the recovery due to fear and at this stage the plea of alibi cannot be considered and the prosecution story is fully corroborated by the medical evidence and there was no undue delay in lodging the F.I.R. because the F.I.R. was lodged on 13.5.2006 at. 7.30 A.M. after covering the distance of 14 kl. mts. from the alleged place of occurrence and it has been clearly stated in the F. I. R. that due to old enmity the applicant has committed the murder of the deceased, therefore the applicant cannot be released on bail.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A. G. A. and after perusing the record, it appears that the applicant is the main accused because he caused injury on the person of the deceased by the axe, the deceased had received two ante-mortem incised wounds and at the pointing out of the applicant the blood stained axe used in commission of the alleged offence was recovered from a bridge and there was an old enmity between the parties, in the present case the deceased had received two incised wounds, it is alleged that he was caught hold by three accused persons, thereafter the injuries were caused by the applicant by using the axe blows. It is not a case of s ingle injury, therefore it cannot be hit and run affair and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail. Therefore the prayer for bail is refused.

Accordingly, this application is rejected.