BANTU @ VIJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Jai Narain, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that as per the prosecution version, on 2.12.2011 at 3:30 p.m., the deceased Amar Pal, a practicing advocate, along with his brother Om Pal were coming back after attending a date in the Court. On the way, accused Pankaj @ Vishwanath, Bantu @ Vijay Kumar and Dhanpal came there on two motorcycles. Dhanpal fired towards the first informant, but he escaped unhurt, except powder marks on face. The complainant hid himself and thereafter all the three accused fired at the deceased causing injuries. The incident was witnessed by Onkar Singh and Kushal Pal. The injured was taken to Government hospital at Firozabad, but he was declared dead. Thereafter, FIR was lodged on the same day at 6:15 p.m.

(3.) It was submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that FIR is ante timed. The case is shown to be registered at crime no. 626 of 2011, but in the inquest memo, at one place, crime no.624 of 2011 is mentioned on the first page itself and there are interpolations in the time of starting inquest and finishing inquest proceedings. On the second page of the inquest memo, in the very first line, crime no.624 of 2011 is mentioned. Similarly, in Form 13, crime no. 624 was written, which was corrected as 626. It was contended that these over writings in the crime number reveal that the FIR was not in existence by the time when inquest proceedings were held. In inquest papers, crime no. 624 of 2011 was written whereas the case is shown to be registered at crime no.626 of 2011 and, therefore, over writings were made in inquest papers.