MUNNA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Ramanuj Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the lower court record.

(2.) THE appellants Munna, Khem Chandra and Keshav have moved their bail application, in appeal filed by them against the judgement and order dated 31.08.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Mahoba in S.T. No. 83 of 2010 whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under sections 302, 201 IPC. They have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 20,000/ - each under section 302 IPC and to undergo three years RI with a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - each and from the amount of the fine realized from the appellants, the amount of Rs. 30,000/ - shall be paid as compensation to the complainant with a prayer that the appellants may be released on bail during the pendency of the appeal and realization of fine may be stayed during the pendency of the appeal.

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and from the perusal of the record it reveals that conviction of the appellants is based on circumstantial evidence, there is no eye witness account. The alleged occurrence had taken place on 10.8.2010, the information of missing of the deceased was given to the police station concerned on 13.8.2010, its FIR was lodged on 16.8.2010 at 8.05 A.M., on 16.08.2010 at the pointing out of the appellants Munna, Keshav and Khem Chandra the headless body of the deceased was recovered and at their pointing out the axe used in commission of the alleged offence was recovered from the bushes, it was taken by removing the math at about 5.10 P.M. In FIR dated 16.08.2010 the appellants were named as accused. It was alleged therein that the litigation over a land was pending with the accused persons. Headless dead body of the deceased was recovered on the basis of the disclosure made by the appellants before the police, it was taken out by digging the math by the appellants, its recovery memo was prepared by the I.O. on 16.08.2010. The head of the dead body was recovered on 18.8.2010 from the field of Ram Kumar. The recovery of the tractor along with the trolley was also made by the I.O. on 18.08.2010 by which the dead body of the deceased was transported from one to another place. In support of the prosecution version ten witnesses have been examined. The statements of the appellants have been recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. and no witness in the defence has been examined. The deposition of P.W. 2 Munna shows that he saw the deceased lying on the ground, all the three appellants were standing there, at that time his head was not separated from the body. The deposition of P.W. 3 Devideen shows that he was told by P.W. 2 Munna that the deceased Chandra Bhan was lying dead where the appellants were standing. The deposition of Inspector Virendra Kumar shows that at the pointing out of the appellants the headless body of the deceased was recovered and axe used in the murder of the deceased was also recovered and he had made the recovery of the head of the deceased on 18.08.2010 also. In such circumstances, at this stage, the appellants are not entitled for bail. The prayer for bail is refused.