SANJAY VISHWAKARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Raj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

(2.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the first informant is the brother of the deceased but is not an eye witness of the incident. The case is based on circumstantial evidence. The complainant claims that the deceased, in the night of 6/7.2.2013, slept in his father in-law's house situated at Phaphamau, Allahabad and in the morning, went with the applicant to ease himself and, thereafter, his dead body was found near pond and muffler (scarf) of the applicant was found lying near the dead body. It was contended that the complainant claimed that in the night, applicant also slept in the house of father in-law of the deceased but none of the members of the family of father in-law of the deceased was interrogated by the Investigating Officer to establish this fact. It was contended that there is no evidence to show that scarf found near the body, belongs to the applicant. Subsequently, applicant was arrested and the police is said to have recovered brick allegedly used in the commission of crime. Learned counsel submits that there was no motive for the applicant to commit murder of the deceased. The deceased as well as the applicant were working for Thakur Travels and there was no reason for the applicant to commit murder.

(3.) Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail.