DHARMENDRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the judgement and trial court record. Learned A.G.A. has filed written objections. Keep it on record. This is a case of circumstantial evidence in which an un-known dead body was found some time in the morning of 26.7.2006 and a report to that effect was lodged on the same day at 1.00p.m. by one Menhdi Hasan. The dead body was identified to be that of Firoz. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that so far as the other two co-accused in this case, who have also been convicted by the same judgment i.e. Ranvir and Rajnish are concerned, the Hero Honda motor cycle of the deceased was recovered on their pointing out and a blood stained Katar was recovered at the pointing of accused Rajnish. Appellant Dharmendra was arrested by the police and no recovery was made from him and his case is clearly distinguishable from that of the co-accused Ranvir and Rajnish. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that not much credence could be placed on the testimony of P.W. No. 9 Nawab Saifi, brother of the deceased who, while going on bus between two places, is said to have seen the deceased and the appellant and other two co-accused, talking with the deceased on the way. It is further submitted that mobile phone calls have been made from the mobile phone of accused Ranvir to the phoe of the deceased, which was received by the P.W. 7 Smt. Mansha, wife of the deceased. She has merely stated that Ranvir had called the deceased on 25.7.2006 and stated that Rajnish had told her that the appellant and Ranvir were present alongwith him. It is further argued that there is an inadequate material for connecting the appellant Dharmendra with this offence. Only Dharmendra and not the other two accused Ranvir and Rajnish, was on bail during the trial. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail of the appellant and relied upon the judgement of the court below. After hearing the counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, let the appellant Dharmendra convicted and sentenced in S.T. No. 608 of 2007 be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court below.