MATHURA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

(2.) The present petition has been filed for the following main relief:-

(3.) Brief facts of the case, as indicated, are to the effect that an FIR was registered by the police on 14/7/1997 at about 13.40, with regard to an incident occurred in the night of 13/14/4/1997. The prosecution story narrated in the FIR, in short, is that the named accused persons including the petitioner came to the house of the informant namely Vasudev Mishra, in the night of 13/14/4/1997 at about 2:30 A.M. and assaulted the sons of the informant with Hathgola and Gun and Katta with the intention to cause death and also demolished the newly constructed wall. Thus, general allegations were leveled in the FIR dtd. 14/7/1997, against the named accused persons including the petitioner. During the course of trial the statement of the petitioner under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Trial Court on 10/8/2023. In this statement the petitioner stated that at the time of alleged incident the licensed gun of petitioner's father was deposited in the police station and he had gone to his brother's house at Lucknow. After the aforesaid, the petitioner preferred an application No. 307 Kha dtd. 24/8/2023, praying therein that head Moharrir P.S.- Tarabganj, Distt.- Gonda, who had deposited the licensed gun of petitioner's father bearing gun No. 26797, be summoned for examination to prove that the licensed gun and two cartages (Kartoos), were deposited in the police station by the petitioner after demise of his father on 13/3/1996. Another application No. 308 Kha was preferred by the petitioner, wherein he prayed to summon the Prabhari Adhhikari (Ayudh) Office of District Magistrate, Gonda, to prove the fact that the licensed gun was released on 22/2/2001 in favour of legal heirs of late Umashankar, as the petitioner claims that the licensed gun of his father was not available at the time of alleged occurrence and therefore the alleged presence of the petitioner at the place of alleged occurrence would become foul version of the informant. The petitioner had also preferred a list of the witnesses to be summoned.