CHANDRASHEKHAR Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 16.3.2004 passed by Sessions Judge, Allahabad in Case No. 2 of 2001 (State v/s. Chandra Shekhar and another) arising out of Crime No. 121 of 2001, under Ss. 221, 224 I.P.C. and Sec. 7 and 12 Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S. Nawabganj, District Allahabad, whereby the accused Chandra Shekhar was found guilty and convicted to two years rigorous imprisonment under Sec. 221 I.P.C. and three years rigorous imprisonment under Sec. 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) Filtering out the unnecessary facts, the prosecution case enshrined is that a report was lodged by the informant Shiv Vinayak Singh on 15.5.2001 stating that on 15.5.2001 S.I. A.P. Chandra Shekhar accompanied with Head Constable 257 A.P. Shiv Vinayak Singh, Constable 650 A.P. Prem Narayan Pal, Constable 742 A.P. Rajesh Singh Yadav, Constable 463 A.P. Chandrabhan Singh and Constable 819 Hetram along with Official Jeep No. U.P. 70 L 8689 Swaraj Mazda driven by Paramhans Mishra were returning after producing the accused Mohd. Bux @ Noor Bux @ Major Abdul before the court of C.J.M., Lucknow in Crime No. 836 of 2000 under Ss. 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Sec. 3, 6, 12 Passport Act as well as 14 Foreign Citizen Act. After the accused Mohd. Bux @ Noor Bux @ Major Abdul was produced before the court, the accused Chandra Shekhar in spite of request by other police personnel not to take accused Noor Bux @ Noor Bux @ Major Abdul to attend the call of nature, he took accused Noor Bux alone to attend the call of nature from where at 9:30 p.m. accused Mohd. Bux @ Noor Bux @ Major Abdul fled away from the custody of the aforesaid Sub Inspector. He has further stated in the first information report that the accused was already produced before the court concerned, in spite of resistance of the other police personnel, the accused was taken by accused Chandra Shekhar to the office of Advocate Razi Ahmad in the civil court from where he was brought to a P.C.O. and the accused was permitted to converse telephonically to various people from the P.C.O. after that the police party along with accused departed to Lucknow when they all reached Kasba Lal Gopalganj and came near a petrol pump in spite of resistance of the other police personnel, the appellant took the accused alone to attend the call of nature and said that he alone is sufficient, no one is needed. The appellant made available a torch and a Lota of water to the accused from the tea shop and talked to the accused for 15 minutes in isolation and accompanied the accused to attend the call of nature. All the other police personnel insisted to handcuff the accused but the appellant did not permit the police personnel to handcuff the accused. Due to discipline, the police personnel could not do anything. At 9.30 p.m., the appellant fired two shots and said that the accused had fled away. Thus, the accused had fled away from the custody of S.I. A.P. Chandra Shekhar. Hence, the report was lodged.

(3.) The prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses. P.W. 1 Shiv Vinayak Singh, who is informant. He has proved the written report as Ex. Ka -1. P.W -2 is Constable 819 Hetram, who also witness of fact. P.W. 3 is Head Constable 88 Maqbool Ahmad, who resisted the accused at Crime No. 221 of 2001 and prepared Chik report which was proved as Ex. Ka -2. The witness of other scribed the G.D. proved as Ex. Ka -3. P.W. 4 S.I. Govind Sharma, this witness proved the application submitted to the Metropolitan Magistrate Tees Hazari Court, Delhi as Ex. Ka -4. He has also proved in the G.D. entry as Ex. Ka -5. Copy of the G.D. has proved as Ex. Ka -6, Ka -7. G.D. No. 15 was proved by this witness. This witness also prepared the orders for arrest of the accused whose memo was proved as Ex. Ka -8. Recovery memo was proved as Ex. Ka -9 and interrogation memo was proved as Ex. Ka -10.