BECHU PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This application is filed by the applicant Bechu Pandey with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case Crime No. 49 of 2006 under Sections 302, 504 and 506, I.P.C. and 3 (2) (v) S.C./S.T. Act, P.S. Bariya, district Ballia.

(2.) THE prosecution story in brief is that in the present case an F.I.R. has been lodged by Gupteshwar Paswan at P.S. Bariya on 15.3.2006 at 10.30 a.m. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 15.3.2006 at about 10 a.m. in the vicinity of village Teg Rahi Chatti, it was lodged against applicant and two or three other unknown miscreants. It is alleged that the deceased Nagendra alias Langar son of the applicant had gone to village Teg Rahi Chatti to purchase a squirt (pickari). THE applicant was instrumental for committing his murder. Due to his murder the day of Holi was converted into sorrow and thereafter, inquest report was prepared by the Investigating Officer and the dead body was sent to mortuary where the post mortem examination report was prepared. According to the post mortem examination report, the deceased had received only one incised wound in front of the neck as ante mortem injuries.

(3.) IT is opposed by the learned A.G.A. and the learned counsel for the complainant by submitting : (1) That the first informant is not an eye-witness. He lodged the F.I.R. on the basis of the information received. The F.I.R. was lodged within half an hour. The distance of the police station was about 3 km. from the place of the alleged occurrence. There is no delay in lodging the F.I.R. In such short period, there was no chance to make conversation with the eye-witnesses because eye-witnesses being women was under sorrow and they were weeping to see the dead body of the deceased, even in the F.I.R. it was not alleged that the injuries were caused by firearm but under some confusion it was wrongly mentioned in the aforesaid column of the chick F.I.R. that injuries were caused by the firearm. The same sentence was repeated in the inquest report, which shows that at the time of the preparation of the inquest report the F.I.R. was in existence. IT is wrong to say that in the statement of the witnesses recorded on 16.3.2006 the manner of causing injury is by way of cutting the neck of the deceased has been mentioned on the basis of the post mortem examination report because post mortem examination was conducted on 16.3.2006, because the spot inspection note was prepared by the Investigating Officer on 15.3.2006, the date of the alleged occurrence in which it was clearly mentioned that the deceased was murdered at the place 'A' by using sharp edged weapon. The statement of the witnesses were recorded on the next day of the occurrence. They have clearly stated that the applicant caused injuries on the neck of the deceased by knife. And the application dated 29.3.2006, signed by 94 persons appears to be false because it is mentioned therein that due to explosion of a powerful cracker the deceased received injury, which is not corroborated by the post mortem report because the deceased had received only one incised wound on the neck and no other injury was found on his person and this injury was not the result of explosion, which shows that the applicant has used his influence upon the villagers to give an application to the S.P., Ballia. In case he is released on bail, he shall not allow the witnesses to depose evidence against him because the first informant and other witnesses are very poor persons, they belong to the schedule caste community they are have-nots, whereas the applicants are very powerful person, Therefore, the applicant may not be released on bail.