UMA SHANKAR Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Government Advocate.

(2.) The applicant is said to have killed the victim by firing at him from a close range while the victim was in his house. The incident is said to have occurred around 5.00 p.m.

(3.) The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the First Information Report is ante-timed and the applicant has been falsely nominated in the FIR. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court towards certain discrepancies in the FIR and other police papers. He points out that in the FIR the place of occurrence is stated to be the house of the victim in village Lohagara whereas in police papers it is stated to be village Jaggi Ka Pura hamlet of village Lohgara. The distance of the police station from the place of occurrence, according to the FIR is 6 kms. whereas in the inquest report it is shown to be 7 kms. The name of the assailant in the site plan is shown to be Shankar Kol whereas in the FIR he has been described as Uma Shankar and that no blood was found at the alleged place of occurrence. Lastly it is submitted that the appellant's name is not disclosed in the inquest report. Learned A.G.A. submits that it is day light incident and the applicant and two unknown persons are said to have committed the crime and medical evidence corroborates the participation of the applicant.