Allahabad High Court
Smt. Guddi @ Gayatri Devi vs State Of U.P. on 5 August, 2010
Author: Amar Saran
Bench: Amar Saran
Court No. - 46 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 374 CR.P.C. No. - 4603 of 2009 Petitioner :- Smt. Guddi @ Gayatri Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- Kamal Dev Rai Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Amar Saran,J.
Hon'ble Shri Kant Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A and perused the trial court judgement and record.
An enquiry has been filed from the computer showing that the co- accused Raghubir Singh has not yet filed any appeal.
It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that this is a case of circumstantial evidence and the circumstances are inadequate for linking the appellant with the offence. It is further argued that the only evidence against the appellant is a photograph which was taken of appellant along with co-accused Raghubir Singh, who was her Dewar. It was submitted that taking of the photograph is neutral circumstance as the photograph of a 'bhabhi' can always be taken along with her Dewar and that is not clinching circumstance for reaching to a conclusion about the involvement of the appellant in this case. It was next argued that so far as recovery of axe on the joint pointing of the appellant and co- accused Raghubir Singh was concerned, PW-3 Dal Chand has stated in his cross examination that he recovered, the said axe from outside the house of the appellant and it was kept under a heap of Mustard and Arhar .
Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and argued that in this case a false report was got lodged by co-accused Raghubir Singh that two unknown person has come and assaulted his brother and had given axe blows . The two witnesses PW-1 Manni Lal and PW-3 Dal Chand have deposed about the illicit relations of the appellant with the co-accused Raghubir Singh for which they were protesting but the appellant and co-accused refused to listen to them. PW-1 has stated that the deceased had expressed an apprehension against the appellant and co-accused. In the examination-in-chief, PW-3 has stated that the appellant and co-accused got the axe recovered from the heap of mustard and Arhar on 15.5.2006. As per serologist report, the said axe contained human blood. If two unknown outsiders had given the blows with the axe, there was no question of laying the axe on the spot . It was then submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has falsely been implicated at the instance of Dilip as they were interested in 9 bighas land which stood in the name of appellant and co-accused Raghubir Singh but no defence evidence to substantiate the same has been led.
Having considered the submissions of the parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we are not inclined to grant bail to the appellant Smt. Guddi alias Gayatri Dei. Her prayer for bail is accordingly rejected.
However,hearing of the appeal is expedited. Office is directed to prepare the paper book, preferably within three months and to list the appeal for hearing thereafter.
Order Date :- 5.8.2010 sfa/