Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. Ashok Singh Bhadauria had filed his written statement and the defence had also produced D.W. 1 Santosh Singh, S.I. Radio Anurakshak Adhikari, City Control Room, Kotwali, Kanpur Nagar. He stated that on 17.5.2003 he was posted as R.M.O. and log book was prepared in the control room which was prepared by the operator on duty. Date and time and all the informations are entered in the said log book. He stated that in the officer grade log book it is mentioned that on 30.10.2001 at 8.37 p.m. information was received that S.P. South had informed that spot location is 80 ft road and A.D.M. City had informed that A.C.M. VI shall reach Regency Hospital and look after the affairs. On 30.10.2001 at 8.45 p.m. information was entered that two students of D.A.V. College are injured. One of them had expired and other is under treatment. At 8.50 it is entered that security for the house of Chakresh Awasthi be made. At 9.55 p.m. it is entered that public are not permitting to bring down the dead body. On 30.10,2001 at 10.45 p.m. Tiger asked to do the checking effectively, the ages of the culprits are 28 to 35 years and they have Tata Sumo, Santro and Bulerro and they can escape to anywhere, all the vehicles should be checked effectively. He stated that in all these informations entered in the log book name of the accused is not mentioned. In the officer grade log book except a reference of 80 ft road no other information about the murder is entered. In the log book of the same day at about 11.10 p.m. Panther 'A' had informed that inquest is completed but copy of F.I.R. is required. Police stations were contacted but the copies of inquest report were not available with the police stations. Photo copy of the log books are Ext. Kha 1 to kha 6.

12. Sessions Judge relying upon the prosecution evidence convicted the accused persons, as aforesaid.

13. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that there is delay in lodging the report, log books of the control room indicate that till the preparation of inquest memos nobody was named as an accused hence the F.I.R. is ante timed. There is conflict in the post mortem report and the eye-witness account. No independent witness or any witness of the locality is examined in support of the prosecution case. Presence of eye-witnesses, namely, P.W. 1 Manish Awasthi and P.W. 2 Amit Nigam at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful. Prosecution also failed to prove the motive in the said crime.

28. P.W. 12 is Constable K.D. Dixit. He prepared the chik No. 360 on 4.11.2001 of case crime Nos. 851, 852, 853/2001 on the basis of report lodged by S.K. Tripathi. He prepared G.D. No. 38, which is Ext.Ka.31.

29. The defence case is of denial. They Produced D.W.1 Sub-inspector Santosh Singh, Incharge of City Control Room. He produced log book entries of date 31.10.2001. The entries of log book are kha 1 to kha 6. They have also filed affidavit of Ashu Nigam, Ex.Kha-7, statement of Chakresh Awasthi under Section 200 Cr.P.C., kha 8, Chrgesheets kha-9 and kha-10. The order passed by District Magistrate against Chakresh Awasthi kha-12. Appellant Ashok Singh alias Gappu Bhadauria had filed a written statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He had stated that Chakresh Awasthi and member of his gang wanted to grab the house on the basis of forged power of attorney obtained by standing one fake person as owner of the house. He used to threaten the tenants. On this account actual owner and tenants were inimical. Ramesh Dubey also wanted to grab this house and there was very strong enmity between Ramesh Dubey op the one hand and Chakresh Awasthi and Ashu Nigam on the other. After the murders of Chakresh Awasthi and Ashu Nigam Ramesh Dubey entered into the house. Chakresh Awasthi being a student leader had enmity with several persons. Chakresh Awasthi was an old criminal and he had several enemies. Chakresh Awasthi had married Vandana, who is his niece and brother, father and her other relatives were also inimical to him. The informant Manish Awasthi had also criminal background. He further stated that witnesses are also criminal and they were not present on the place of occurrence. Report was lodged after consultation and deliberation. He was arrested from his house and the police has wrongly shown their arrest arid recoveries of the said weapons from them.