SURENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE ap pellant-accused Surendra Singh has been convicted and sentenced along with co-accused Ajai Pal Singh, Gajendra Singh and Pappu Mahraj @ Vijai Kant to undergo im prisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10, 000/- with default stipulation under section 302 read with section 34 Indian Pe nal Code (In short 'the IPC'), and ten years' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- under section 307 read with sec tion 34 IPC by the judgment and order dated 29.7.2008, passed by Sessions Judge Jalaun at Orai, in S.T. No. 164 of 2006 and connected S.T. No. 165 of 2006. He has challenged his conviction and sentence by means of this appeal and also has made prayer for bail pending appeal.

(2.) JAGAT Singh (P.W.I) had lodged an FIR on 25.3.2006 at 2.00 p.m. at P.S. Kotwali Kalpi, District Jalaun, where a case under section 302/307 IPC was registered at Crime No. 198/2006 against Surendra Singh (appellant herein), Ajai Pal Singh, Gajendra Singh and Pappu Maharaj, all residents of village Sarsala situated under the jurisdiction of P.S. Kalpi (Jalaun). Shorn of unnecessary details, the allegations made in the FIR, in brief, are that on 25.3.2006 at about 11.00 a.m. Mangal Singh, brother of the complainant and his nephew Ravindra Singh (P.W.2) as well as Ram Mohan Singh were going to their khalihan and when they reached in front of the ghera of Surendra Singh, the accused Surendra Singh having his licenced revolver, Ajai Pal Singh armed with licenced rifle, Gajendra Singh having licenced gun of Surendra Singh and Pappu Maharaj armed with country made pistol (katta) came out from the ghera of Surendra Singh and they all fired indiscriminately towards Mangal Singh and his companions, due to which Mangal Singh and Ravindra Singh sus tained injuries. As a result of those injuries, Mangal Singh died.

(3.) NEXT submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant was that according to the findings recorded by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned judg ment, the sole fire arm injury to the de ceased Mangal Singh was caused by the co-accused Ajai pal Singh by.315 bore rifle, whereas according to the statement of in jured Ravindra Singh, who is prime wit ness of this case, the appellant Surendra Singh is said to be armed with his licenced pistol of.22 bore. It was further submitted by Sri Maheswari that as per injury report Ext. Ka 2, the injured Ravindra Singh had sustained only one firearm wound size 0.5 cm, diameter circular in shape with corre sponding exit wound, size 2 cm x 1 cm x depth oval in shape, which is not possible to be caused by.22 bore pistol. It was also submitted in this context that the appellant Surendra Singh was arrested on the day of incident at 10.05 p.m. along with his li cenced pistol of.22 bore bearing No. 91310 as per recovery memo Ext. Ka 19. The said pistol was sent for ballistic examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory Uttar Pradesh Agra along with two empty car tridges of.22 bore, which are said to have been recovered from the place of incident by the Investigating Officer at the time of spot inspection, but according to the Ballis tic Expert report (paper No. 74-A/l in Trial Court record), the recovered empty car tridges of.22 bore were not fired from li cenced pistol No. 91310 and hence on this ground also the appellant Surendra Singh deserves bail, because according to the Ballistic Expert report, the licenced pistol of the appellant was not used in the incident.