Ramesh Chandra @ Rajendra Yadav, Deena Nath Yadav, Surendra Prasad and Ram Chander Yadav vs The State of U.P.

Appellants in these four appeals have been convicted by order dated 21.09.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No. 12, Pratapgarh in Sessions Trial No. 68 of 1996 and have been sentenced to the maximum term of life sentence with fine.

We have gone through the judgment of the court below as well as the lower court record, statement of the witnesses, FIR lodged by PW-1 Raja Ram Yadav, who happens to be uncle of deceased, and the post mortem report of deceased Rajendra Prasad.

The incident is said to have taken place on 20th December 1995 at 05.30 pm. The role assigned to the appellants and co-accused Amar Nath and Mahendra Pratap is of firing upon the deceased and the injured with fire arms and other weapons of assault, held by them. Besides the deceased, four persons received injuries in the incident.

FIR of the incident was lodged on 21st December 1995 at 07.30 am. The distance of the police station from the place of the incident is 5 kilometers.

It has been submitted by Sri Siddhartha Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants that the guns which were allegedly used by accused Dina Nath Yadav and Ramesh Chandra alias Rajendra Yadav and which were subsequently got recovered, were sent for examination and it was found that the cartridges recovered from the spot were not fired from said guns. It has also been stated by learned Counsel for the appellants that PW-1 Raja Ram Yadav has specifically stated in his statement during trial that the injured were taken to District Hospital, Pratapgarh for medical examination on 20th December 1995 at 11.00 pm and thereafter they were referred and taken to District Hospital, Allahabad, but PW-1 Raja Ram Yadav, who had lodged the FIR on 21st December 1995 had not mentioned in the FIR that he had carried the injured to District Hospital, Pratapgarh. As such, the submission is that the FIR is ante timed and in fact was not in existence at the time it is purported to have been lodged. Learned Counsel for the appellants further argued that neither in the inquest report nor in the post mortem report, there is a mention of FIR. being in existence.

The next argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellants is that in the inquest report, it has been mentioned that co-accused Mahendra was armed with a gun whereas the prosecution witnesses have deposed that he was armed with a lathi.

Learned Counsel has also submitted that the prosecution case is that at the time of the incident, there was thick fog and it was dark and the accused were identified in the light of bonfire and lantern. His submission is that in the darkness and due to the commotion which would have prevailed at the time of the incident, it could not be possible for the witnesses to have seen as to which of the accused had committed the crime. He stated that the incident could not have taken place at 0530 pm. as mentioned in the FIR. Further submission of learned Counsel for the appellants is that the doctor has opined that the death was caused due to injury nos. 2 and 3 suffered by the deceased on his abdomen and thigh, but it cannot be said as to who was the author of the fatal injuries.

Learned Counsel further submitted that co-accused Mahendra Pratap and Amar Nath Yadav, who are said to be armed with Lathis have already been released on bail; the appellants are in jail for the last more than three years; they were on bail during the course of the trial; they did not misuse the liberty of bail granted to them; and the appeal will take considerable long time to reach to its logical conclusion.

Taking into consideration the submissions of learned Counsel for the appellants, we are of the view that the appellants may be directed to be released on bail.

Let appellants Ramesh Chandra alias Rajendra Yadav, Deena Nath Yadav, Surendra Prasad and Ram Chandra Yadav 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, Pratapgarh.

Realization of half of the fine from the appellants shall remain stayed and the remaining half fine shall be deposited by them within one month from the date of their release on bail.

The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh shall transmit to this Court photo stat copies of the bail and surety bonds furnished by the appellants to be preserved on the record of the respective appeals.