BADRI PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Dileep Kumar, Sri Rajiv Gupta, Sri Rajarshi Gupta and Sri Akhilesh Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the lower court record.

(2.) THIS bail application has been moved by the appellant Badri Prasad in appeal with a prayer that he may be released on bail during the pendency of the appeal which has been filed against the judgement and order dated 24.07.2013 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 11, Aligarh in S.T. No. 442 of 2005 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under sections 302 and 324 IPC.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and from the perusal of the record it reveals that FIR of this case has been lodged by Anand Swaroop Sharma, P.W. 1 on 22.8.1995 at 4.35 P.M. in respect of the incident allegedly occurred on 21.8.1995 at about 7.30 A.M. The FIR was lodged under sections 323, 324 IPC alleging therein that one year prior the alleged incident Km. Sushma aged about 12 years, the niece of the first informant was raped and killed, its report was lodged, her father Ram Autar Sharma was doing the parivy in that case. In that case Naresh Kumar, cousin of the first informant was also witness, he was also providing the help in pairokari of the above mentioned case. The accused of this case namely Vinay Kumar is in jail. His father Badri Prasad (the appellant) was also accused in that case, who was released on bail. The proceedings of cancelling his bail was pending. The appellant and his son Ram Kumar and his several associates pressuring the Ram Autar Sharma to settle the dispute through compromise and not to do pairokari in above mentioned case, but Ram Autar Sharma had told that the murderer of his daughter again be sent to jail. On 21.8.1995 Ram Autar Sharma and Naresh Kumar boarded the train from Khurja railway station for going to Delhi, at about 7.30 A.M. the deceased Ram Autar Sharma came out at Dankaur railway station from the train for urination, at that time the appellant, his son Raj Kumar and his associates were present at the platform. The appellant Badri Prasad was teacher in school of Jamalpur which was near the railway station. All the accused persons beaten the deceased by bricks and stones, Naresh Kumar came in his rescue, he was also beaten due to which the crowd was gathered there, somebody fired from the crowd which hit the appellant Badri Prasad. On firing the associates fled away from the place of the incident but the deceased Ram Autar died on the spot, Naresh was in a serious condition. On information the first informant came to Bulandshahr, the story was narrated to him by the injured Naresh when he became concious thereafter the FIR of this case was lodged. The post mortem examination of the dead body was conducted as of unknown person, the dead body was sent by the Officer Incharge of the GRP Aligarh Junction. According to the post mortem examination report the deceased has sustained 14 ante mortem injuries, all the injuries may be lacerated caused by hard and blunt objection. In respect of the said incident, the statement of the witness Naresh was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C, thereafter the case was converted under sections 302, 307 IPC. The information about the said incident was given to the GRP Dankaur on 21.8.1995 at 7.40 A.M. by Dhoun Singh Meena, Porter, Dankaur railway station mentioning therein that there have been quarrel at platform No. 2, its information was given by Pawan Kumar, ASM. According to the Nakal Rapat No. 10 dated 21.8.1995 at 11.50 A.M. police out post GRP Dankaur one unknown dead body was lying on the platform and two persons were lying in a very serious condition, they were appellant Badri Prasad Sharma and Naresh Kumar Sharma, they were sent tot he hospital to provide proper medical aid. The inquest report was also prepared as of unknown person on 21.8.1995. In support of the prosecution version nine witnesses have been examined, the first informant Anand Swaroop is not eye witness, P.W. 2 is injured witness. According to his statement the injuries were caused on the person of the deceased by appellant, his son Raj Kumar and some other persons by using the bricks, stones, lathi and danda blows. He also came in his rescue, who also sustained injuries, in injured condition he was taken to Bulandshahr by GRP. Prior to that he was taken to Sikandarabad to provide the medical aid. Prior the alleged incident the daughter of the deceased was raped and killed by Vinay Kumar, son of the appellant. Its case was pending in which the deceased was doing the pairavy. According to the medical examination report of the injured Naresh, he had sustained seven injured in which injury No. 1 was lacerated wound on his fore head, the injury No. 2 was abrasion o right side of the fact, injury No. 3 was lacerated wound on the chin, injury No. 4 was abrasion, injury No. 5 was lacerated wound, injury No. 6 was contusion and injury No. was lacerated wound on the non vital part of the body. The statement of the appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C. has been recorded and no witnesses has been examined from the side of the defence. It is a case in which the appellant was having the strong motive and in support of the prosecution version injured Naresh has been examined as P.W. 2. In such circumstances,t he appellant is not entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is refused.