Suraj vs State of U.P.

Shiv Shanker, J.—This is first bail application moved on behalf of the applicant before this Court in Case Crime No. 363 of 2005, under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302, I.P.C. Police Station Babri, district Muzaffarnagar.

Briefly, the prosecution case according to the first information report is that Satya Pal informant alongwith his uncle Jawahar Singh was returning on 18.12.2005 from the tube-well and reached near the field of Karan Singh son of Daleep and saw that Smt Kaushlya (wife of informant) and Smt. Santosh (wife of Jasveer) were coming from village after taking meal at about 10.30 a.m. Same time, accused Ranveer, Manupal, Sooraj, Anuj, armed with tamanchas, and Rajendra, armed with Tabal, came there. On the exhortation of accused Ranveer, Manupal, Sooraj and Anuj made firing with their tamanchas upon Karan Singh, Jasveer and Gajendra. Jasveer was also attacked by Rajendra with tabal (sharp edged weapon). Consequently, Karan Singh, Jasveer and Gajendra had died on spot due to the sustaining firearm injuries. Thereafter, they fled away from there. The first information report was lodged by Satya Pal Singh on 18.12.2005 at 11.30 a.m. against all the five accused persons.

Heard Sri V. P. Srivastava, learned senior advocate, assisted by Sri Lav Srivastava, for the applicant and learned A.G.A. as well as Sri Amit Daga, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant. I have also perused the whole records.

It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that no tabal injury was found on the dead body of deceased Jasveer which was allegedly caused by accused Rajendra. This shows that the first informant Satya Pal was not present at the time of alleged incident. It is further contended that the statements of none of eye-witnesses, except the first informant, were recorded by the Investigating Officer soon-after lodging the first information report. The next witness of fact Jawahar was interrogated on 27.1.2006 after the lapse of one month and ten days in the 15th Parcha of the case diary. The other witnesses Smt. Kaushal alias Kaushlya and Smt. Santosh were also interrogated on the same day. No reason has been given by the prosecution as to why they were interrogated so late. It is further contended that this incident had taken place at a lonely place in the jungle and none of the witnesses were present at the time of incident. The site plan reveals that the place of incident is covered by sugar-cane and wheat fields and it had taken place in the sugar-cane field and in such circumstances, the presence of eye witnesses on the spot, at the time of alleged incident appears to be suspicious. It is further contended that the presence of digested food material in the post mortem reports show that the incident had not taken place as alleged by the prosecution. It is further contended that the inquest reports of the deceased persons were prepared first then the first information report was lodged. This fact finds support from the inquest reports itself in which initially the Section of the offence is mentioned as 302, I.P.C. only and rest of the Sections were added at latter stage. All the eye-witnesses are the relatives of the deceased and their interrogation after such a long time also creates doubt about their presence and witnessing the incident. It is further contended that the entire family of the applicant has been implicated in this case and none of the family member has been spared.

On the other hand, it is submitted that this is a case of triple murder in broad day light. It is corroborated with the medical evidence. The applicant has been named in the first information report lodged promptly alongwith other accused. The bail application of co-accused Anuj had already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 18.1.2007 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1221 of 2007.

Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the rejection of bail cannot be a principle of parity.

This incident had allegedly taken place on 18.12.2005 at about 10.30 a.m. while the first information report was lodged within an hour, i.e., at 11.30 a.m. on the same day after covering a distance of five and half kilometers from the place of occurrence. In this case three persons had been shot dead. However, there was no delay in lodging the first information report. In such circumstances, it is liable to be deemed that it was lodged promptly against the present applicant also alongwith four other companions.

It has been specifically mentioned in the first information report and the statements of first informant and other witnesses Smt. Kaushlya and Smt. Santosh that the present applicant alongwith his companions Manupal, Ranveer, Rajendra and Anuj reached at the spot alongwith deadly weapons by forming unlawful assembly and on the exhortation of co-accused Ranveer, the present applicant and co-accused Ranveer, Manupal and Anuj made indiscriminate firing upon deceased Karan Singh, Jasveer and Gajendra and co-accused Rajendra also assaulted Jasveer with tabal. Consequently, they all sustained injuries and died on the spot. Therefore, the present applicant has also participated in committing the murder of all the three persons in prosecution of common object of such unlawful assembly. This version is supported with the post mortem reports of the deceased persons. Two fire-arm wounds of entry as ante mortem injuries, were found on the person of deceased Gajendra Singh two fire-arm wound of entry and one fire-arm wound of exit as ante mortem injuries were found on the person of deceased Karan Singh and one fire-arm wound of entry and one turnel (gutter) shaped wound, as ante mortem injuries, were found on the person of deceased Jasveer Singh. The cause of death had been opined by the doctor in the post mortem reports of all the three deceased persons as a result of ante mortem injuries. This medical evidence is also supported by the prosecution version.

This is a case of broad day light murder of three persons and there is direct evidence against the accused persons. The previous enmity and litigation is the motive of this case between the parties.

One tunnel (gutter) shaped wound 6 cm. x 2 cm. over right angle of mouth lower jaw fractured alongwith one fire arm wound of entry was found on the dead body of deceased Jasveer Singh. It is alleged that deceased Jasveer Singh was assaulted by tabal by accused Rajendra. At this stage, it cannot be said whether this gutter shaped wound could be tabal injury or not but it cannot be deemed that it was the injury of fire-arm. On that basis, this contention has no force that the presence of first informant Satya Pal Singh and other witnesses was suspicious at the time of alleged occurrence.

So far as the contention of recording the statements of witnesses with the delay is concerned, it may be mentioned that the police personnels are usually busy in law and order duty and the Investigating Officer did not contact the witnesses. Whatever may be the circumstance ; it can be looked at the stage of trial when the Investigating Officer will appear and the cross-examination will be done from him. Merely on that basis, the presence of eye-witnesses cannot be liable to be disbelieved.

So far as the contention of relevant place is concerned, the first informant and other two eye-witnesses, namely Smt. Kaushlya and Smt. Santosh wife of Jasveer Singh have been shown to the present at the time of alleged place of occurrence. The reason of their presence has been given in their statements as the first informant and Jawahar Singh were returning from the tube-well and Smt. Kaushlya and Santosh were coming after taking meal and met at the place of occurrence then they saw the alleged occurrence. The photo of the place of occurrence, where the dead bodies were lying, shows that the sugarcane crop was not standing but the said fields were in such a position that assailants could be identified easily by the witnesses. Therefore, it is not liable to be deemed that none had seen the incident in the jungle and false case has been concocted against the accused persons, including the present applicant.

So far as the presence of digested food is concerned, I have perused the post mortem reports of all the deceased persons. The post mortem report of deceased Gajendra Singh reveals that 300 gms. semi-digested food was found in the stomach and small intestine and large intestine were found half full and half full respectively. The post mortem report of deceased Karan Singh reveals that 1 Oz liquid was only found in the stomach whereas the small intestine and large intestine were half full and half full respectively while the post mortem report of deceased Jasveer Singh reveals that Oz liquid was only found in the stomach and small intestine and large intestine were half full and half full respectively.

This incident had taken place at 10.30 a.m. in the month of December, 2005. Therefore, there is no evidence that they (deceased) did not take any breakfast etc. in the morning. This is not the incident of the morning otherwise it could be safely presumed that they have been murdered in the night and due to semi-digested food. On the basis of that, the time of alleged occurrence cannot be deemed suspicious. This is a case of triple murders in broad-day light committed in ghastly and brutally manner and as such the accused persons including present applicant deserve no sympathy for grant of bail.

After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, the bail application of the present applicant is not liable to be allowed.

Consequently, the bail application of the present applicant is hereby rejected.