PALTAN Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Gaurav Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Muktesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for first the informant and Sri Ashwani Prakash Tripathi, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.

(2.) Learned counsel has then placed before the Court the statement of the first informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., a copy of which is annexed as Annexure 3 to the affidavit and has argued that the said statement was recorded on 16.10.2019 in which he has stated that he has an assurance that the applicant and co-accused - Ram Bachan along with some other persons have murdered his nephew and have thrown the dead body in the pond.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant further places before the Court the statement of Prem Chandra who is the cousin of the first informant which was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 1.2.2020 and has argued that it was after a very belated stage i.e. after about five and the half months for the first time he has stated that the accused persons came to him and gave an extra judicial confession to him. Further the statements of Hari Ram and Ramesh Chandra have also been placed before the Court which were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and it is argued that the said two persons have stated that on the day of occurrence i.e. 13.8.2019 at about 4:30 a.m., they saw the applicant, along with one Ram Naresh, Ashok and Vijay throwing something in the pond. Later on, they came to know that the nephew of the first informant has died and as such they have a belief that the said incident has been committed by the said accused persons. It is argued that in the said statements, the said witnesses have stated that Ram Bachan who is named as the other accused in the first information report was not present at the said time. The said three statements are annexed as Annexure 4 to the affidavit. It is thus argued that the evidence as collected by the investigating officer in the form of the statements of the said three persons one of them being the alleged person before whom the accused are said to have given an extra judicial confession at the said two witnesses who have alleged to have seen three accused persons throwing something in the pond are wholly unreliable and untrustworthy as the same has seen the light of the day after a gross delay which is clearly an afterthought and is wholly unsafe to be relied upon as of now. It is further argued that there is no recovery from the pointing out or possession of the applicant and the recovery as alleged has been shown from the pointing out of co accused - Ashok which is of a knife. The said recovery memo is annexed as Annexure 5 to the affidavit.