VIKRAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri A. K. Maurya learned counsel for complainant and learned A.G.A. as well as perused the record.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was not named in the missing report. After four days of missing of deceased, the F.I.R. under Section 364, I.P.C. was lodged by wife of deceased m on the basis of suspicion as per information given by other persons. It is further contended that confessional statement of co-accused Ravi Kaushik is not admissible in evidence against the present applicant. It is further contended that dead body of deceased was not recovered at his pointing out, but it was recovered on 5.11.07 at the parking of railway station Meerut Cantt. Thereafter, inquest report was prepared and post-mortem was conducted. It is further contended that the applicant was arrested by the police on 13.10.07. His confessional statement was recorded which is not admissible in evidence. False recovery of one country-made pistol of 315 bore, one purse and one A.T.M. Card of deceased were shown to be recovered at his pointing out, but the applicant was not taken to any place from the concerned police station for recovery. In this regard, learned counsel for applicant filed an affidavit before the concerned C.J.M. Therefore, false recovery has been made at the pointing out of present applicant. It is further contended that the deceased was a criminal person and having a long criminal history. He was also accused under Section 302, I.P.C., i.e., Case Crime No. 574 of 2003, under Section 302/120B, I.P.C. P.S. Civil Lines, District Meerut in a case of murder of famous doctor. It is further contended that motive has been shown against the present applicant that he took loan from the deceased which is totally concocted. In fact he had never taken any loan amount from the deceased and as such there is no strong motive in this regard. After missing of deceased, the case was highlighted in Media and Newspapers but witnesses who were servant and employee of doctor Rohtash disclosed the name of the applicant in their statements which are showing the prosecution story doubtful.

(3.) THEREFORE, there are clinching circumstances against the present applicant as mentioned above and only inferences can be drawn on the basis of other circumstances that the applicant is also responsible for committing murder of deceased.