GOVIND Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B. K. Srivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rajul Bhargava, Mr. S. K. Mishra and Mr. A.K.S. Solanki, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Gaurav Kakkar, learned counsel for the complainant , learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. He further submitted that according to the prosecution on 9.10.12 at 9.15 A.M. the informant Pramod Upadhahay gave an information at P.S. Sadar Bazar stating that on 8.10.12 at about 8.30 P.M. his son Rohit Upadhyay had left for Sultanpur by his Activa Honda and thereafter his whereabouts are not traceable. A missing report to that effect was registered by the police vide G.D. No. 25. The informant Promod Upadhahay again gave an information on 9.10.2012 at 11.30 P.M. at the said police station which was recorded in G.D. No. 66 that the dead body of his son Rohit has been found in the circle of P.S. Kagarol. On the basis of this information, the said missing report was registered as FIR under Section 364/302 IPC vide case Crime No. 916 of 2012. He further submitted that according to the prosecution, Chaukidar Govind Singh of village Tikri, Police Station Kagarol gave an information to the said police station on 9.10.2012 at 8.20 A.M. that a dead body of unknown person was lying in the field of one Randheer Singh. After preparing the inquest report, post-mortem was conducted at 5.30 P.M. on the same day and the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the informant Promod Upadhahay on 10.10.2012 in which he did not express any suspicion on any one. However, in the second statement of the informant which was recorded on the very next date i.e. on 11.10.2012, the informant disclosed the name of two witnesses Ram Das and Gyanendra who had seen Rohit in the company of some persons. Thereafter, statement of the aforesaid witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on the very same day i.e. 11.10.2012 wherein the said witnesses stated that on 8.10.2012 at about 8.30 P.M. they saw the deceased Rohit talking to the appliant and the other co-accused Kunal, Prashant, Govind while one person was sitting in the Hyundai i-10 Car.

(3.) It was submitted that after recording the statements of the last seen witnesses, the Investigating Officer received an information from an informer that the applicant was involved in the commission of the alleged offence and on the basis of the said information the applicant was arrayed as an accused. The applicant and the other co -accused persons namely Raghavendra alias Rajhu, Govind, Prem Singh and Kunal on 12.10.2012 at 12.25 P.M. were arrested while allegedly sitting in the aforementioned car having its registered number UP 80 BB 5754.Thereafter, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the accused persons who confessed their complicity in the commission of the alleged crime. He further submitted that there was neither any report of call details against the applicant nor had any recovery been made either from the possession of the applicant or at his pointing out and the allegation of alleged recovery has been made at the pointing out of the co-accused Raghavendra alias Rajhu and Kunal. He further submitted that there is neither any incriminating circumstance against the applicant nor there is any specific allegation etc. against the applicant regarding demand of any ransom from the parents of the deceased .