AMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is filed by the applicant Amar Singh with a prayer that entire criminal proceedings of S.T. No. 511 of 2005 State v. Ram Kumar and Ors. under Sections 307, 302, 504 and 506 pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3 Mathura and charge framed against the applicant on 28/11/2005 by the same court may be quashed.

(2.) It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant tint in lire present case the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during the investigation is not sufficient to frame the charge under Section 307 I.P.C. against the applicant, The date of birth of the applicant is 1/1/1956. He was posted in July, 1993 in the State Bank of India on the post of clerk cum cashier, presently he is posted as Senior Assistant in village Tarauli district Mathura, He is a non-violent, peace loving and law abiding citizen and is not having any criminal antecedent. The allegations made against, the applicant are hyperbolical, exaggerated and false. The first informant Dinesh is a harden criminal and history sheeter, the deceased Ramu was also a harden criminal and the witnesses Mukesh Misra is also a criminal and one of the eye witness'Gopal has filed an affidavit mentioning therein that he has been falsely named as eye witness in the F.I.R. The participation of the applicant and the role of firing upon the complainant party from a distance of about 280 feet in the dark hours of night is absolutely false because it was not possible to identify a person from such a longdistance and from such a distance it was not possible to cause any injury. The alleged occurrence has taken place on 20.5.2004 at 7.15 p.m. in the back side of Hindustan Petroleum Building where no source of light was available and in the present case no identification parade was held. According to the prosecution Dinesh, the brother of the deceased Ranu alias Rain Prasad, lodged an F.I.R. on 20.5.2004 a, about 9.15 p.m. at P.S. Kotwali Mathura stating therein that co-accused Jeetu, Ram Kumar and Prashant are goondas, on 20/5/2004 at about 7.15 p.m. the first informant Dinesh who is the elder other of Ramu went for walking in the Army Garden, his brother Vishnu, Mukesh Mishra, Gopal had also come for walking purpose. The co-accused Ramu, Jeetu and Prashant hurled abuses on the deceased and gave challenge, thereafter they caused injuries by using knife blows on the person of the deceased. The alleged occurrence was witnessesed by the first informant and other persons in the Mercury light, when they were chased, the ' applicant fired by gun and due to that firing, the first informant and another could not proceed further. The deceased was taken In an injured condition by the first informant and his brother Vishnu to hospital where he died.

(3.) It is further contended that there was over writing in the panchayatname and the name of the accused were not mentioned therein. The prosecution story was not corroborated by the postmortem report and there was no explanation of abrasion. The learned trial court has illegally famed charge against the applicant under Section 307 I.P.C. because no offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is made out and there was no sufficient material to frame of the charge under Section 307 I.P.C. and the entire proceedings against the applicants are abuse of the process and are liable to be quashed.