SOHAN PAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Sohan Pal has preferred the Criminal Appeal No. 751 of 2012, the appellant Hari Singh and appellant Gulfam Singh have preferred the Criminal Appeal No. 587 of 2012 and the appellant Chandra Prakash has preferred the Criminal Appeal No. 820 of 2012 against the impugned judgment and order dated 30.1.2012 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 12 (X-cadre), Budaun in S.T. No. 809 of 1998 connected with 382 of 2001 and 810 of 1998. In all the criminal appeals the appellants have moved their bail applications separately, the same are being disposed of by a common order.

(2.) It is further contended that in the present case the investigation was completed by C.B.C.I.D. and the charge sheet was submitted only against the appellant Chandra Prakash. Other appellants were not charge sheeted, they have been summoned by the trial court in exercise of powers conferred under section 319 Cr.P.C. The alleged occurrence has not taken place as alleged by the prosecution, it has occurred in some other manner. The explanation given by the prosecution in respect of the death of the accused Vijay is not deliberately. Even the prosecution story is not fully supported by the post mortem examination report. The presence of the witnesses at the alleged place of the incident was highly doubtful. The witnesses are highly partisan, they are not reliable at all. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond the shadows of the doubt.

(3.) In reply of the above contention, it is submitted by learned A.G.A. that the alleged occurrence has taken place in a broad day light, FIR has been promptly lodged, it is a case in which all the appellants in a pre planned manner participated in commission of the murder of the deceased. By the villagers the appellant Chandra Prakash was apprehended on the spot. In firing done by the miscreants towards the villagers one of the miscreant namely Vijay Singh sustained injuries and died on the spot. The plea of the alibi taken by the appellant Gulfam Singh has not been successfully proved. The prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond the shadows of the doubt. It is a case in which the appellant Chandra Prakash has been apprehended immediately after commission of the alleged offence. There is no reason to dis-believe the presence of the witnesses. During investigation the charge sheet was not submitted against the appellants Sohan Pal, Hari Singh and Gulfam Singh without any proper reason whereas they were named in the FIR as accused. In such circumstances, the appellants may not be released on bail.