Allahabad High Court
Om Pal Singh And Anr. vs State Of U.P. on 29 February, 2012
Author: Ravindra Singh
Bench: Ravindra Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Reserved Criminal Appeal No.5205 of of 2011 Ompal and others Versus State of U.P. Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J.
Hon'ble Anil Kumar Agarwal,J.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, leaned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and perused the lower corut record.
The facts of the case in brief are that the F.I.R. has been lodged by Ram Autar P.W. 1 on 6.12.2008 at 7.30 p.m. in respect of the incident allegedly occurred on 6.12.2008 at about 5.15 p.m., it is alleged that on 6.12.2008 the first informant was going to attend a marriage function of the daughter of Prem Pal Singh in the company of Sanju and Dinesh, the sister of the first informant namely Smt. Vimlesh, her husband Om Pal Singh and accused Kaushlendra were also going to attend the above mentioned marriage function on a motorcycle. The brother of Ompal and Ram Autar alias Pappu was also going to attend the marriage function on a separate motorcycle. As soon as they came to Bhakudi Mod, they stopped their motorcycle, she was caught hold by Om Pal and Ram Autar alias Pappu, the the accused Kaushlendra caused gun shot injury by using country made pistol. The accused persons escaped from the place of occurrence, the deceased was taken by the first informant to Anil Hospital, Sikendra Rao where she was declared dead, thereafter, the dead body was taken to the police station and the F.I.R. was lodged. In support of the prosecution version seven witnesses have been examined in which P.W.1 Ram Autar and P.W. 2 Dinesh have been examined as eye witnesses. According to the post mortem examination report, the deceased has sustained three ante mortem injuries in which injury no.1 was gun shot wound of entry on the left side of the chest, which was having tattooing and blackening, its exit wound was injury no.2, injury no. 3 was gutter shaped firearm wound on the thumb of the left hand, which was also having tattooing and blackening, after considering the evidence the trial court has convicted the appellants and other co-accused.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the presence of the first informant and P.W. 2 Dinesh at the alleged place of occurrence was highly doubtful. There are material contradictions in the statement of the witnesses, which show that the presence of the P.W. 1 and P.W.2 at the alleged place of occurrence was highly doubtful. In the present case the allegation of causing gun shot injury is assigned to the accused Kaushlendra. He has been falsely implicated in the present case, the place of occurrence is highly doubtful. The F.I.R. of this case is ante timed, there was no sufficient motive to commit the alleged offence. The role of catching hold is assigned to the co-accused Om Pal and Ram Autar alias Pappu. According to the prosecution version also they did not cause any injury to the deceased, they are real brothers. It was a case of robbery but its colour has been changed to the murder, the deceased was killed when she made protest for which D.W.1, D.W. 2 and D.W. 3 have been examined, but according to the statement of P.W. 1 no witness was present at of the alleged place of occurrence. The evidence of D.W. Shreedevi is also based on hearsay. According to the testimony of D.W. 3 Ram Pal Singh, the deceased was taken to the hospital by him in a Maruti Car because he was told by four or five persons, who were standing near the deceased, that the robbery had been committed in which the deceased had sustained gun shot injury. He deposed that the deceased was declared dead by doctor thereafter, he brought the dead body to the police station where after putting down the dead body he left the police station but his statement was not recorded by the police. The husband of the deceased has disclosed his name as Ompal. The accused Ompal and Ram Autar were on bail during the pendency of the trial, they have not misused the liberty of bail, in which a circumstances, the appellants may not be released on bail.
In reply to the contention it is submitted by the learned A.G.A. that it is a case in which the wife of the accused Om Pal has been killed, Om pal and his brother Ram Autar alias Pappu actively played the role in the commission of the alleged offence, active role of causing gun shot injury is assigned to the accused Kaushlendra, P.W.1, P.W.2 claimed themselves to be eye witnesses of the alleged incident. The prosecution story is corroborated by the post mortem examination report. The prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt, in such a situation the appellant may not be released on bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and from the perusal of the record that in the present case wife of the accused Ompal has been killed, he did not take any action, thereafter, no F.I.R. has been lodged on his behalf, active role of catching hold is assigned to the accused Om Pal and his brother Ram Autar alias Pappu, the role of causing gun shot injury is assigned to the accused Kaushlendra.
It is a case in which the wife of the appellant Om Pal has been killed, active role of carrying the wife at the place of occurrence has been assigned to the appellant Om Pal, the allegation against him is that the deceased was caught hold by him and his brother in the said incident did not sustain any injury, he did not inform the police etc. though the role of causing gunshot injury is assigned to the co-accused Kaushlendra but the appellant Om pal Singh was the mastermind of the alleged incident, therefore, the appellant Om Pal Singh is also not entitled for bail, his prayer for bail is refused.
So far as Ram Avtar is concerned, he is the brother of the appellant Om Pal, according to the prosecution version, he moved on a separate motorcycle and no specific motive has been assigned to him, therefore, he is entitled for bail.
Let the appellant Ram Autar convicted in S.T. No. 207 of 2009 under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. P.S. Sikandrarau District Hathras be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.
The realization of fine shall remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal.
Dt. 29.2.2012 NA