MOHD SAGEER Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and Sri Gopesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the complainant.

(2.) AGAINST the judgement and order dated 30.6.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge/ Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 4 Rae Bareli in S.T. No. 550 of 1996 connected with S.T. No. 72 of 1997 the appellants have filed criminal appeal no. 914 of 2012, 973 of 2012 and 1127 of 2012. The appellant Mohd.Sagir, Majid, Rafeeq have filed criminal appeal no. 914 of 2012, the appellants Mohd. Saeed alias Lala, Mohd. Shamim @ Shamim, Sajid and Murad have filed criminal appeal no. 973 of 2012, the appellants Mohd.Safeer, Mohd. Zahir @ Munne, Autar @ Ram Autar, Kamaal and Sadakat Husain have filed criminal appeal no. 1127 of 2012, all the appellants have moved their bail applications in their respective appeals, therefore, all the bail applications are being disposed of by a common order.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that in the present case the alleged occurrence has taken place all of sudden, according to the prosecution version, the appellant Mohd. Safeer, Mohd. Zahir @ Munne, Autar @ Ram Autar and the appellant Kamaal, Sadakat Husain were armed with firearms and remaining appellants were armed with lathies. There were a cross version of the alleged incident, from the side of the persecution six persons lost the lives and five persons sustained injuries and from the side of the appellants six persons sustained injuries, time and place of both the versions is the same but the trial court has not recorded any finding that the appellants were aggressor, in cross case, the accused persons have been acquitted, the plea of the right of private defence has been taken, from the side of the appellant also, the injured persons sustained injuries caused by hard and blunt object and firearms but the same have not been explained. There is material inconsistency in the statement of the witnesses. The appellants were on bail during the pendency of the trial, they have not misused the liberty of bail, therefore, they may be released on bail.