RUDRA PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard finally through video conferencing.

(2.) It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that complainant Bhagwat Singh Chauhan lodged a report on 19/12/2019 alleging that at about 04:00 pm, he along with brother Virendra Singh, nephew Raghvendra Singh and neighbour Prithivraj Singh were in his field. Manvendra Singh Chauhan was also there. Irrigation of crops was going on and his nephew was standing at a distance of about 15-20 meters near a tank constructed in the field itself. At that time, applicant No.2 Banti, applicant No.1 Golu alias Rudra Pratap Singh and co-accused Meharwan came there with firearms. The co-accused Sanju alias Sanjay Bundela and Chandra Pratap were also armed with firearms. Applicant No.1 Golu alias Rudra Pratap Singh fired a gunshot from a close range on the right of the chest of Raghvendra Singh, as a result of which, Raghvendra Singh fell down. After noticing the complainant and other persons, the accused persons started firing on them, however, all the witnesses did not sustain any injury. When Raghvendra Singh was being taken to Jhansi Hospital, he expired on the way. It is submitted that the police after completing investigation has not filed the charge sheet against co-accused Meharwan Singh as his presence was found at different place. However, the applicants have also supplied the documents to show that they were not present on the spot, but the police has not investigated the matter from the applicants' point of view and have filed the charge against the co-accused Sanju alias Sanjay Bundela by showing that the applicants are absconding. Proceedings under Section 82 of CrPC have been initiated and further investigation is kept pending under Section 173(8) of CrPC.

(3.) It is submitted by the counsel for the applicants that once the applicants had provided sufficient evidence to the police to prima facie establish their innocence and the Investigating Officer was under obligation to investigate the matter from the applicants' point of view. Since the Investigating Officer has failed to do so, therefore, Investigating Officer be directed to consider the defence of the applicants.