ISRAQ Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Parcha of Sri Ashok Kr. Mishra on behalf of complainant is taken on record.

(2.) According to the FIR, the prosecution case in brief is that on 1.8.2012 at about 3.00 p.m. the accused applicant and co-accused Farhan committed the murder of one Rizwan by doing fire on him.

(3.) The counsel for the applicant has submitted that according to the First Information Report, co-accused Farhan is said to have some weapon, may be some firearm and the accused applicant is said to have no bricks or stones or any weapon in his hand; that in the inquest report a head injury was noted by the police officer who conducted the inquest report but in the post mortem report of the deceased, no head injury was noted by the autopsy surgeon; that according to the post mortem report, only one contusion on the chest of the deceased was found by the doctor concerned, which cannot be the cause of death of the deceased, so this case does not fall under Section 302 IPC, so the accused applicant should be enlarged on bail. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the prayer for bail and have further submitted that as per the statement of the first informant recorded under Section 161 Cr. P.C., the first informant is not an eye witness of the occurrence in question; that the statement of one eye witness Irfan was recorded by the Investigating Officer and that witness Irfan categorically stated in his statement that the deceased was chased by the applicant and co-accused persons and when the deceased fell down on the ground, the applicant and co-accused Farhan jumped on his chest to create pressure and according to the statement of autopsy surgeon given to the Investigating Officer, the heart of the deceased was ruptured as a result of which the deceased died, so the prosecution case is supported by the statement of the doctor who conducted the post mortem examination of the deceased, so the accused applicant should not be enlarged on bail.