VEER SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant seeks bail in crime number 498 of 2005, under Sections 302/506 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, police station Jeanpur District Azamgarh.

(2.) THE synopsised allegation of the prosecution against the applicant is that on 6 -11 -2005 at 8 p.m. when the informant Ram Narain Singh alongwith his uncle and aunt Paras Nath Singh and Smt. Maina Devi (village Pradhan) were going to participate in the recital of Ramayan at Hanuman temple carrying a torch with them and when they reached near the PCO of Ravindra Patel then all of a sudden the applicant accused alongwith co -accused Damalu, Umesh, Hemant @ Bablu sprang up armed with country made pistol from the place where they laid in ambush and blocked the way of the informant and others. Hemant and Umesh caught hold of the deceased Paras Nath Singh on the instigation of Damalu and the applicant shot him from behind which shot hit him on the back. The informant tried to catch the culprits but they escaped firing in the air. Many people participating in the recital of Ramayan collected there alongwith many villagers. The deceased was carried to the hospital in a Marshal Jeep but he was declared dead by the doctor. The motive alleged was the election rivalry where the accused pressurised the deceased to ask Maina Devi to withdraw from the election of village Pradhan but he did not do so and Smt. Maina Devi had contested the election and had won.

(3.) THE Counsel for the applicant submitted that it is case of hit and run from behind in the wintry dark night where there was no source of light and no body had seen the assailant and after the deceased was shot at that the witnesses reached at the spot and then the prosecution case was cooked up by the informant. He contended that neither Maina Devi nor the informant were present on the spot. He submitted that had Maina Devi been present on the spot she would have been first to be attacked as she was main target and she would not have been spared to be a witness of the incident by those accused who had chosen the dark hour of night to commit the crime so that they are not identified and moreover she would have in any case accompanied her husband to the hospital to get him the best treatment done and would not have left him alone in such a critical condition. He further submitted that but for the informant all other witnesses who were interrogated by the I.O. on the date of the incident and who reached on the spot immediately after the incident have said that when they reached on the spot they were told that the deceased was shot at by unknown persons. These witnesses are Ram Lakhan, Man Singh, Katwaru and Vinod Singh. He further submitted that statement of Smt. Maina Devi was recorded after a gap of five days and had she been present she would have been interrogated on the date of the incident itself. He further submitted that in the site plan the deceased has been shown to have been shot at in the way between two fields in an open place and not at the place alleged in the FIR and no source of light is shown in the site plan on the spot nor any blood is shown to have been found on the spot. He further submitted that till inquest report was done the FIR was not in existence and that is why inquest report do not contain crime number sections etc. and the time of lodging of FIR is also different and it is because of cooking of F.I.R. that the inquest report was delayed and was conducted next day at 11 a.m. He further contended that the allegation of surrounding by the prosecution is absurd and in the dark night some body had fired a single shot at the deceased from behind and shot him dead and no body had seen the incident and the applicant has been falsely implicated in the case.