Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: SHARAD YADAV in Jitendra Kushwah vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 25 October, 2018Matching Fragments
5. Babulal Yadav (P.W.29) had seized concrete soil vide Ex.P/18 and had prepared Safina Form (Ex.P/24) in front of Ajay Singh Yadav (P.W.10) and Kartar Singh Yadav (P.W.11). He had also prepared Naksha Panchayatnama (Ex.P/25).
6. Constable Kamlesh Kumar (P.W.12) had registered untimely death intimation (Akal Mrityu Ki Soochna) (Ex.P/26). Patwari had prepared a Nazri Naksha (Ex.P/28) in front of Sharad Yadav (P.W.20).
7. It has come on record that Balveer Singh Kaurav (P.W.7) while watching the CCTV footage had identified the accused as Jitendra Kushwah, resident of Mandhre Ki Mata, who was engaged in the business of selling snow balls at Katora Tal. He had prepared identification Panchnama (Ex.P/13) and thereafter accused was arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.P/42) and intimation of arrest was given to the relatives of the accused vide Ex.P/48.
20. The accused abjured his guilt and pleaded ignorance.
21. Prosecution has examined as many as 33 witnesses, of which most vital are Radhakrishna Yadav (P.W.1), father of the deceased, Smt.Vandna Yadav (P.W.2), mother of the deceased, Rakesh @ Dharasingh Yadav (P.W.3), relative of P.W.2, Reena Shakya (P.W.6), who had accompanied Akhilesh Bhargav, Sr. Scientific Officer (P.W.19) at whose instance FIR (Ex.P/12) was recorded, Balveer Singh Kaurav, Head Constable (P.W.7), Pratnesh Aathle (P.W.9), Sharad Yadav (P.W.13), Dr.Deepak Yadav (P.W.14), Dr.Sudha Ayangar (P.W.15), Dr.J.P.Goyal 10 CRRFC-08/2018 & CR.A.5950/2018 (P.W.15), Dr.Sarthak Juglan (P.W.17), Rahul Yadav (P.W.18), Balkrishn Mihoriya (P.W.20), Sandeep Dangi (P.W.29), Babulal Yadav (P.W.29) and Dr. Anil Kumar Singh (P.W.31).
32. It is pointed out that Sharad Yadav (PW-13) has deposed that he had seen one person taking a minor girl from the corner of the house of Dr. Deepak Yadav and he had asked that man as to where he was taking the girl and what was his name and then accused had given his name as Jitendra. It is pointed out that presence of Sharad Yadav (PW-13) is not seen from the CCTV footage nor it is apparent that accused stopped to talk to anybody and also Sharad Yadav (PW-13) did not disclose such incident to anybody. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case Balbir v. Vazir and others as 18 CRRFC-08/2018 & CR.A.5950/2018 reported in AIR 2014 SC 2778 wherein in para 22 Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the aspect of identification parade and held that when the witnesses did not have sufficient opportunity to see the faces of the accused, then in such a case failure to hold identification parade is a serious drawback. Similarly, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Salveraj v. State of Tamil Nadu as reported in AIR 1976 SC 1970 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to set aside the concurrent finding of guilt on the ground that prosecution story was highly improbable and inconsistent with the ordinary course of human nature. It is also pointed out that most of the witnesses belong to the same community and presence of some of the witnesses of seizure like Surendra Singh Yadav (PW-28) resident of Ward No.2 Mau, is highly improbable and Radhakrishan Yadav (PW-1) and Rakesh Dhara (PW-3) are related to each other, whereas Balveer Singh Kaurav (PW-7), star witness of the prosecution, is omni- present and no motive could be assigned to the accused. This being a case based on circumstantial evidence, extraordinary interest taken by Balveer Singh Kaurav (PW-7), Surendra Singh Yadav (PW-28) and Rakesh Dhara (PW-3) does not inspire confidence. In support of this argument, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of UP v. Arun Kumar Gupta as reported in AIR 2003 SC 801.
43. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Punati Ramulu and others as reported in AIR 1993 SC 2644; wherein it was found that, investigating officer did not record FIR after receipt of information of cognizable offence and register the complaint as FIR after reaching the spot and after due deliberations, consultations and discussion, then it was held that complaint could not be treated as FIR and it would be a statement 24 CRRFC-08/2018 & CR.A.5950/2018 made during investigation and hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. Similarly, it has been held that testimony of interested witnesses could not be relied upon in absence of strong corroborative evidence of clinching nature. It is pointed out that Sharad Yadav (PW-13) is also a planted witness and has been planted to corroborate the evidence of Balveer Singh Kaurav (PW-7) who had prepared a memo (Ex.P/13) after seeing CCTV footage revealing the identity of the accused. This is not permissible and in fact vitiates the trial.