AROOR SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is Crl. Misc. Petition No. 19199-M of 1998 filed by Aroor Singh son of Darshan Singh whereby he is claiming bail in case FIR 220 dated 10.3.1998 under section 302/34 Indian Penal Code of PS Sadar, Karnal. The prosecution case in brief is that Rajbir son of Kanshi Ram of village Shekhupura Sohana is chowkidar at India Petro Chemicals and he is on watch and ward duty in this factory day and night. This factory is situated at Meerut Road at a short distance. On 10.3.1998, he saw one man lying on a kacha path on the right side of the road near the factory. When he went near him, he found that it was a dead body. There was blow on his face. It was dead body of a young man and killing had taken place on the previous night due to some vehicle having been driven negligently and at a fast speed knocking him down dead. Matter was reported to the police on 10.3.1998 by Rajbir son of Kanshi Ram. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that aforesaid allegations made out a case under section 279/304-A Indian Penal Code and there is no offence of murder. Evidence against the petitioner is the alleged confessional statement made by co-accused Gurjit Singh before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Muzaffarnagar. So far as petitioner Aroor Singh is concerned, Gurjit Singh has not tarnished him at all in that confession. He has tarnished himself alone. The doctor who performed post mortem examination found injuries on the chest. His opinion was that the death was caused due to the injuries on the chest. According to the doctor who performed post mortem examination, no sharp weapon was used. No fire arm was used. According to the doctor, death was due to the use of blunt weapon. In the confessional statement said to have been made by co-accused Gurjit Singh, there is mention that injuries were caused to the deceased by wooden object and not with pistol. Statement alleged to have been made by them before the police is inadmissible. It was further submitted that the only allegation against the petitioner is that after murder had been committed, Gurjit Singh co-accused came to him with tractor snatched from the deceased. He spotted that tractor with him.

(2.) BOTH the accused took the police party to the place of alleged murder. During investigation, police collected evidence but the evidence appears to be contradictory. It is not a case where it can be said that presumption of innocence operating in favour of the accused should not operate because of the evidence collected pointing to the guilt of the accused. So, bail to the petitioner to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. Petition allowed.