(1.) These appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order dated 4th May, 2005, of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, passed in Criminal Appeal No. 6180 of 2003, along with Criminal Appeal Nos. 3749 of 2003 and 4648 of 2004, against the judgment and order of the Sessions court, Bareilly dated 5th August, 2003, in Sessions Trial No. 855 of 2001 in Crime No. 384/2000.
(2.) Fact and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are as under:
(3.) Shri K.T.S. Tulsi, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants in all three appeals, has submitted that the place of occurrence is not free from doubt for the reason that no blood stained earth had been lifted from the place near the Jeep and no blood stains were found in the Jeep. The incident had occurred at the residence of Natthu Singh @ Raghunath Singh (D.1) as an entry has been made in this regard in the General Diary at about 11.00 A.M. and the investigating officer Raj Guru, Inspector, P.S. Bahedi (PW.10) had gone to that place. The prosecution did not disclose the genesis of the case correctly. Natthu Singh @ Raghunath Singh (D.1) was a history-sheeter and a large number of criminal cases were pending against him. Virendra Singh (D.3) and Dharampal Singh (D.4) were involved in criminal cases and facing trial in the said cases. Therefore, they have large number of enemies and the whole case of the prosecution becomes totally improbable. Had the incident occurred as alleged by the prosecution, the Jeep should have got some bullet marks as Rajendra Singh (D.2) and Virendra Singh (D.3) were sitting in the Jeep. Neither were any bullet marks on the Jeep nor had any pellets been recovered from the Jeep or the nearby area. An FIR had initially been registered under Section 396 I.P.C. and, in view of the fact, that one of the victims died on the spot and another died enroute to the hospital, had the prosecution given the correct version of events, the FIR ought to have been registered under Sections 302 and 307 I.P.C. along with other Sections. The inquest has been manipulated and there are five blanks therein which make the whole prosecution case doubtful. The use of weapons was not established. The Magistrate received the Special Report after five days. Atar Singh (PW.1) could not tell names of the father of Brahm Swaroop (A.5) as well as of Jagdish Baggar (A.6) though the same had been mentioned in the FIR lodged by him. The prosecution did not examine any independent witness. The reversal of the acquittal of Brahm Swaroop (A.5) and Jagdish Baggar (A.6) by the High Court is totally unwarranted and unjustified. Thus, the appeals deserve to be allowed.
ABOUT US "REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD." is a Company incorporated in 1991 under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Since its inception to 1995, the Company was busy in carrying out the activities related to various Banks' Job Work..
Read More
Sales: sales@the-laws.com
Support: info@the-laws.com
8000853936
9376168072
27, 4TH FLOOR, Agrawal Center, Ashram Road, Income Tax, Ahmadabad 380014.
LOGIN