JHALLOO Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Learned Counsel for parties and perused the appeal records.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant submits that accused Jhalloo has been attributed the role of carrying a rifle but none of the injuries described in the post -mortem report corresponds to the gun shots allegedly fired from the rifle. He further submits that accused -appellant Jhalloo had no motive and did not figure till the statement of the complainant was recorded before the trial court. In the FIR as well as in the statement under Section Cr.P.C. it is only Guddu, who is mentioned to be carrying a banka, but all of a sudden, in the court statement of the complainant the prosecution version took a u -turn and accused Jhalloo was attributed the role of carrying banka and causing injury therewith. Learned Counsel further submits that if at all accused Jhalloo had any motive it was only against his servant Kalloo who had run away with his sister a year back.

(3.) IN view of all the aforesaid, without going into the merits of the case, we accept the prayer for suspension of jail sentence as well as stay of recovery of fine qua accused appellant Jhalloo, son of Shri Ram Roop, resident of village Balehara, P.S. Behta Gokul, District Hardoi. It is thus directed that during the pendency of this appeal, the jail sentence and recovery of fine in respect of the aforesaid accused appellant shall remain suspended, and he shall be released on bail subject to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Hardoi.