RANJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri V. S. Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

(2.) The present appeal has been filed against the Complaint Case No. 3387 of 2001 dated 2/4.07.2001 filed by District and Sessions Judge, Jhansi under sections 193 and 194 I.P.C. P.S. Nawabad, District Jhansi in the court of C.J.M. Jhansi.

(3.) The brief facts relating to the appeal are that the appellant Ranjit Singh lodged F.I.R. under Sec. 302 and 506 I.P.C. on 20.11.1997 at P.S. Raksa District Jhansi stating therein that "on 19.11.1997, he and his brother Virendra Singh were going to their village by bicycle and when they reached near Ripta of Sabhogar Nala, Panjab Singh and Pahalwan Singh of his village, armed with guns were standing there and after catching hold of his brother Virendra Singh, they started strangulating him and threatened first informant Ranjit Singh due to which he hid himself in the drain and being afraid could not come to lodge F.I.R. at night.". On such F.I.R. the named accused Lallu @ Pahalwan and Punjab were tried together for the offences under sections 302 and 506 I.P.C. in S.T. No. 117/1998 and 222 of 1998. The two sessions trials arising out of one and same incident of case crime no. 254 of 1997 were consolidated and evidence was recorded in S. T. No. 117 of 1998. The first informant Ranjit Singh who is appellant in present appeal was examined as PW-1 before the Sessions Judge, Jhansi on 21.06.2001 and in his examination-in-chief he corroborated the prosecution case and reiterated the averments made in F.I.R. which was proved by him as Exhibit A-1, but in his cross examination after lunch, he resiled from his statement given in examination-in-Chief and denied himself to be the eye-witness of the incident of murder of his brother Virendra Singh. On this the witness i.e. appellant was declared hostile and was cross examined by the D.G.C. Criminal, wherein he stated that the statement given by him in his examination-in-Chief before lunch has not been given under any pressure or apprehension and further stated that he has given the statements, as per directions of policemen and that:-