BHUPENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

(2.) Perused the record.

(3.) Submission of the counsel for the applicant is that the incident is said to have taken place on 6.11.2014 and it is said that one Bhanu Prakash @ Monu Singh had taken the deceased Chandrika Prasad along with him but thereafter he never returned. It is also alleged that on the next day, the dead body of the aforesaid deceased was discovered at about 8.00 O'clock in the morning. The allegation made against the applicant in the F.I.R. is that at about 10.00 P.M. on 6.11.2014, the deceased was seen along with the applicant and other co-accused Ram Awadh Singh, Bhanu Prakash @ Monu Singh and Malkhan Singh. It was also alleged in the F.I.R. that the deceased is said to have been seen along the aforesaid accused persons by one Sanjay and Kaushal Kishore. Further submission is that the aforesaid witness Sanjay is the cousin brother of the deceased while Kaushal Kishore is uncle of the deceased. Argument raised on behalf of the applicant is that though the incident is said to have taken place on 6.11.2014 but the F.I.R. of the case was lodged on 12.11.2014 after an inordinate delay of six days'. Submission is that this extraordinary delay in lodging the F.I.R. has not been adequately explained by the prosecution. But what has been emphasized by the counsel is that if the deceased had been seen along with the applicant on the day of incident and if the aforesaid evidence of having been last seen with the deceased contains any grain of truth then this disclosure ought to have been made much earlier specially keeping in perspective the fact that the witnesses, who had seen the deceased along with the applicant and other co-accused on the day of incident, were none other than the close relatives of the deceased being cousin and uncle of the deceased. It has been further pointed out that on the next day of the incident that is to say 7.11.2014, one application was given by the father of the deceased to S.O. Incharge of the concerned police station in which also he had not disclosed the names of the accused persons and had simply requested to get the post mortem done in order to find out the true cause of the death of the deceased. Contention is that it is so demonstrably clear that the aforesaid witnesses who were introduced in order to depose about the evidence of last seen, is nothing but a concoction done deliberately by the investigating officer in order to create somehow some link between the murder of the deceased and the applicant. Contention is that this being a case of circumstantial evidence the link of evidence is inconclusive and wholly insufficient to conclusively infer the guilt of the accused-applicant. Much emphasis was laid by the counsel on the period of detention and it has been pointed out that the applicant has spent almost a year in jail and he is languishing behind the bars since 16.9.2015 having no criminal history and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required.