SITA RAM SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) eard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned AGA for the State.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the FIR which was got registered on 16.04.2017 at about 03:20 p.m. by Sukhdev mentions that there was an enmity going on between the family of Sita son of Manno, due to which, on 16.04.2017 at about 12 p.m., ten accused persons named Sita, Siya, Gupal, Jaumna, Masudan, Jai Prakash, Bankey, Radhey Shyam, Bhoodan and Prakash armed with firearms started harvesting the crops as sown in the field, on which, he and Man Shyam, the brother of the first informant tried to stop them, whereupon the said persons started firing from their weapons, and the first informant and his brother in order to save themselves ran towards Hathiya and later on, they were surrounded by the accused persons and were shot by them, as a result of which, Man Shyam received injuries and died, and the first informant Sukhdev received injuries on his legs. Learned Senior Counsel argued that the postmortem report of Man Shyam annexure no. 7 to the affidavit shows three firearm injuries, out of which, the injury nos. 1 and 2 are entry and exit wound, injury nos. 7 and 8 are also entry and exit wound and even the injury no. 9 as mentioned is described as "firearm wound 1x2 cm on right of perital Fossa". He further argued that Savitri wife of Maksudan and accused had purchased an agricultural land, on which, the side of the complainant wanted to forcibly occupy, as a result of which, the present incident occurred. He has further argued that the First Information Report being Case Crime No. 312 of 2017 was registered on 16.04.2017 at 14:40 hrs by Maksudan at police station Govardhan, District Mathura showing the time of the incident as 16.04.2017 at 12 p.m., in which, Man Shyam (the deceased in the present matter) Sukhdev (injured in the present case), Jamalu and his son have been nominated as accused persons and the said First Information Report was registered under Sections 147 , 148 , 149 , 307 and 506 IPC. He further proceeds to argue that the police registered a First Information Report being Case Crime No. 314 of 2017 on 16.4.2017 at 18:15 hrs under Section 3(25) of the Arms Act, 1959 against Mohan Shyam, (the deceased in the present matter) and a country made gun of 12 bore, cartridges of 12 bore and 315 bore were recovered from him, was registered by S.H.O. Kamlesh Singh of police station Govardhan. He further proceeds to argue that a First Information Report was further lodged by the same police officer i.e. S.H.O of police station Govardhan being Case Crime No. 315 of 2017 under Section 3(25) of the Arms Act on 16.04.2017 at 16:15 hrs against Sukhdev (the injured in the present matter) pertaining to the recovery of two 12 bore country made guns, 12 bore cartridges and 315 bore cartridges. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that from perusal of the postmortem report of Mohan Shyam, looking to the number of injuries as noted by the doctor conducting the postmortem examination, the version as put forward by the prosecution in the First Information Report lodged by the Sukhdev, is totally invariance as the number of accused persons are more who have been assigned specific roles of firing with firearms but the firearms injuries do not correspond at all with the description as narrated in the First Information Report. He further proceeds to argued that the genesis of the present incident has been concealed by the first informant. The incident appears to have taken place in some other manner which has been totally concealed and a false First Information Report has been lodged. The conduct of the accused persons had been very fair in so much, so that a First Information Report being Case Crime No. 312 of 2017 was lodged by Maksoodan for the same occurrence. It has further been argued that police after a detailed and thorough investigation forwarded final reports twice in the matter, but it was only subsequently on the intervention of the first informant that the matter was taken up for further investigation and the applicant has been falsely nominated without even considering the observations of the previous Investigating Officers who had proceeded to forward final reports twice in the same matter. He has further drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that the S.H.O of police concerned had found weapons from the deceased Mohan Shyam and injured Sukhdev, for which, he had lodged separate First Information Reports. In the said First Information Reports, he had specifically mentioned that on getting information about same disturbance of law and order, he reached place the occurrence and found that firing was going on between the parties who after hearing the police siren and getting information of the police reaching the place of occurrence, started running here and there and the incident then stopped. The applicant has no concern with the land in dispute. Civil proceedings are going on between the parties in connection with the said land in dispute. There is no recovery of any incriminating material either from the possession of the applicant or from his pointing out. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 20.08.2019.

(3.) Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the present incident has occurred in a dare devil manner, in which, one person received injuries and died being Mohan Shyam and Sukhdev, the first informant received injuries. He has read over the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the first informant and injured Sukhdev but has fairly conceded that there is no specification of any specific role assigned of any of the accused persons but could not dispute the aforesaid arguments as raised by the learned Senior counsel for the applicant.