DEVANAND MAURYA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINOD Prasad, J. The applicant Devanand Maurya has sought his release on bail in Crime No. 76 of 2006, under Section 302 I. P. C. ,p. S. Bardah, District Azamgarh through this application.

(2.) THE brief allegations against the applicant as is culled out from the F. I. R. are that Shiv Kumar Sahu informant lodged the F. I. R. on 30-3-2006 at 11. 30 a. m. against unknown persons in respect of an incident alleged to have taken place on that day at 11 00 a. m. under Section 302 I. P. C at P. S. Bardaha, District Azamgarh which was registered as crime No. 76 of 2006. THE said F. I. R. is related with the murder of Jitendra Kumar Sahu a village Pradhan who was also District President of Vaypaar Sabha of Samajvadi Party. THE deceased Jitendra Kumar Sahu had left the house at 9. 00 a. m. that day alongwith one of his companion at 11. 00 a. m. THE informant had received the information that he had been shot dead. THE registration of the FIR. succeeded in investigation into the offence and even in 161 Crpc statement the informant did not name any body as an accused. However, in that statement he named Arvind Kumar Maurya as the person who had accompanied the deceased. THE informant however, had shown his apprehension on Devanand Maurya and Vijay Maurya because the deceased had exchanged blows with aforesaid two persons. THE post-mortem report of the deceased, dated 30-3-2006, indicated that he had sustained two firearms wound of entries and the cause of his death was haemorrhage and shocked due to ante-mortem injuries. THE investigation further revealed that the name of the applicant was spelt out by Arvind Kumar Maurya who had anointed the role to Vijay Maurya and Devanand Maurya (present applicant) as the main assailants who had shot dead the deceased from their country made pistol of twelve bore.

(3.) IT is submitted by Sri V. P. Srivastava learned senior Counsel for the applicant that in this case the whole prosecution version is cooked up. The alleged informant Arvind Kumar Maurya had purchased the stamp paper on 28-3-2006 and he had filed an affidavit before Circle Officer, Lalganj, Azamgarh wherein he has mentioned that on 30-3-2006 a Hero Honda Motorcycle of red colour but without number plate came from behind and committed the murder of Jitendra Sahu. He contended that the stamp paper was purchased on 28-3-2006 by the said witness and the contents of the affidavit mentions the fact regarding 30-3-2006. He submitted that the occurrence had taken place on 30-3-2006 then how the stamp paper was purchased on 28-3-2006 is something which cannot be reconciled. He further submitted that the said affidavit was got sweared on 4-4-2006 before the Notary S. N. Singh after a gap of four days from the date of the incident. Learned senior Counsel further submitted that the informant is not an eye-witness of the incident and the name of Arvind Maurya does not find mention in the F. I. R. He further submitted that according to the prosecution case 161 Cr. P. C. statement of Arvind Kumar Maurya is alleged to have been recorded on 31-3-2006 then what was the necessity of his filing an affidavit before the Circle Officer, Lalganj. This is a very negative circumstance against the prosecution. He further contended that the said affidavit dated 4-4-2006 does not make any reference of recording of 161 Cr. P. C. statement by the aforesaid witness. In totality learned Counsel for the applicant contended that Arvind Kumar Maurya, alleged eye-witness, is a got up witness and his 161 Cr. P. C. statement was cooked up by the I. O. and there is no other evidence against the applicant and the whole prosecution case against the applicant is cooked up and manufactured.