SUNIL Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard learned Coun­sel for the appellant and the learned A.G.A.

(2.) OF the five accused tried at the sessions trial, one died during the trial and three have been acquitted. The appellant before us has been convicted to life, im­prisonment. The Riksha puller who is an eye-witness P.W. 4 did not recognize any of the assailants. No test identification was got conducted. P.W. 3 Shyam Singh did not support the prosecution. This leaves P.W. 1 Surendra and P.W. 2 Rajmal. The incident took place on 10.3.1998. The statements under section 161 Cr.P.C. of Surendra and Rajmal were recorded for the first time on 9.8.1998 and 9.10.1998 although both the witnesses claim to be eye-witnesses of the incident.

(3.) CONSIDERING the facts and circum­stances of the case, let the appellant-Sunil son of Mahendra Luhar who has been convicted and sentenced under section 302 IPC in S.T. No. 1179 of 2000 vide judgment and order dated 27.3.2008 passed by Addi­tional Sessions Judge, Court No. 13, Meerut, be released on bail during the pendency of the appeal on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court concerned. Realization of fine will also remain stayed. Bail Allowed.