SUBEDAR SINGH YADAV Vs. STATE OF U.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. and also perused the material on record.

(2.) The applicant Subedar Singh Yadav is involved in case crime No. 303 of 2004, for the offence under Sec. 302, I.P.C., Police Station Sarai Inayat, district Allahabad. It is alleged that in the intervening night of 7/8.7.2004 complainant wife was murdered by 3 accused persons who had covered their faces. The complainant (husband) raised alarm but no body came to his rescue. After investigation the charge-sheet was submitted against all the three accused. Subsequently, on the basis of an application and some affidavits filed by some persons, further investigation was assigned to C.B.C.I.D. who dropped the three accused persons and filed charge- sheet against complainant (husband) himself.

(3.) As against the genuineness of the prosecution case and proposed supporting evidence, it was argued that initially the charger-sheet was submitted against three accused persons. They were sent to jail also. Subsequently after a lapse of about 6 months one Radhy Shyam made a complaint and also manipulated some affidavits in support of his contention to the effect that the murder was committed by none other than the husband himself because of suspicion of extra maternal relation. It was emphasised that even during the second investigation the Investigating Officer of first investigation maintained that the murder was committed by the 3 accused persons and not by the husband. He also told that there was some land dispute between three accused persons and the husband (complainant). They had gone to lift him from his house but he was sleeping with his wife who was shot dead. He also told that the arrival and departure of Maruti Van in the vicinity was seen and told by witnesses during investigation. It was also pointed out that despite sufficient opportunity no counter affidavit has been filed to controvert averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application. In respect of apprehension of tampering of the witnesses. It was argued that the applicant has no criminal history to his credit.