RANJIT Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

(2.) Perused the record.

(3.) Submission of the counsel for the applicant is that the incident is said to have taken place on 15.9.2014 and according to prosecution version co-accused Vishwajeet had given a telephonic call to the deceased Veeru and Gajendra by way of which he called them in order to make a compromise with regard to an incident of marpeet which had taken place with another co-accused Manveer and one Pradeep. On this telephonic call the two deceased persons had gone up there. It was further stated that when the two deceased persons reached at the desired place the accused persons who are eight in number according to the version of the FIR entered into hot talks with Veeru and Gajendra and then they by force dragged Veeru and Gajendra into two cars and fled away. This incident is said to have witnessed by the first informant Dharampal who is father of Gajendra one of the deceased of the case. Apart from this the incident was also said to have witnessed by first informant's son Kishanpal and one Harprasad. Subsequently during the course of investigation two more witnesses Chet Ram and Siya ram who are examined as witnesses and who also claimed to have witnessed the incident of abduction done by the accused persons. Later on the dead body of Veeru was discovered while another deceased Gajendra is untraceable. The submission of the counsel is that the most anomalous feature of the present case is that if the abduction of the two deceased persons was done in front of the witnesses who are so closely related to them being father and brother. It is impossible to imagine that the incident would remain unrecorded on next two days. Submission is that FIR was lodged not on 15.9.2014 but on 17.9.2014. Emphasized by the counsel that unexplained enormous delay speaks volumes about the embellished nature of the version of the FIR and it is very obvious that the FIR gets bereft from much of its evidential worth because of unexplained inordinate delay. Further submission is that during the course of investigation at the instance of co-accused Manveer and Ajeet the incriminating weapon of offence and also the clothes belonging to the deceased were discovered while no such incriminating recovery have been effected from the possession of the applicant. It was further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the case of the applicant is distinguishable from co-accused Manveer and Ajeet and also co-accused Vishwajeet who had telephonically called up the two deceased persons to the place from where they were abducted. Counsel for the applicant has also fairly submitted that as the initial incident of quarrel with regard to which the compromise talks were pretended had taken place between Pradeep and Manveer and therefore, the case of the Pradeep also stands on different footing. It has also been pointed out that co-accused Pradeep has not yet been charge sheeted by the police. It is much emphasised by the counsel that the incident was witnessed by the family members of the deceased and also by other witnesses whose statements were recorded during the course of investigation, it is highly improbable and different to accept the explanation that the incident of abduction was not reported just because of the reason that the family members were very busy tracing about disappearance of the deceased. Further submission is that out of natural instinct to secure the life of the abducted persons the first in normal reaction would be to report the matter to police so that their lives may be saved. It was also contended that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and the link of circumstances is wholly in conclusive and on the basis of the evidence collected by the investigation no conclusive inference of guilt can be inferred against the applicant. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 20.10.2014 and in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.