Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2956 (ALL)

Raj Kumari v. State of U. P.

2010-09-23

ABDUL MATEEN, YOGENDRA KUMAR SANGAL

body2010
Yogendra Kumar Sangal, J.:- Criminal Misc. Application No. 35719 (B) of 2010 as well as Criminal Misc. Application No. 34952 (B) of 2010 Heard Sri R.K. Singh as well as Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants. 2. Since these applications have been preferred by the applicants namely Smt. Raj Kumari and Chhavi Lal against the conviction order dated 06.03.2010 passed by learned Special Judge / Additional Sessions Judge SC/ST Act, Bahraich in Session Trial No. 99 of 1996 relating to Case Crime No. 564 of 1995 under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B IPC read with Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station Nanpara, District Bahraich whereby convicting the appellants to undergo maximum term of life imprisonment with fine stipulation, in pending appeals respectively as such are being taken up together. 3. We have gone through the contents of judgment of court below, FIR and the statement of the witnesses. 4. As it comes out that one Prem Kumar (deceased) was called upon from his house by Smt. Raj Kumari (the appellant) and, thereafter, after four days, his body was recovered. 5. Argument advanced by the learned counsel for the applicants is that prosecution had examined ten witnesses, out of which witnesses of the fact are PW-1 to PW-4 amongst them PW-1 Shatrohan who has turned hostile, PW-2 Sukhiya is mother of the deceased and complainant who had supported the prosecution version, but PW-3 Moon has also turned hostile. Thus, on the basis of sole testimony of Sukhiya mother of the deceased, the conviction is based upon. 6. It has also been argued that matter relates to conviction of the appellants only on the basis of last seen, although story of the prosecution which comes forward to the effect that Prem was called upon by the appellant Smt. Raj Kumari and thereafter Chhavi Lal along with Vishram committed the murder of Prem Kumar. 7. Further, prosecution story reveals that since Prem Kumar was having illicit relationship with the wife of Vishram, as such, this offence has been committed. As the matter relates to last seen and that only with respect to the statement of PW-2 who had lodged FIR. Thus, the entire story is based on the statement of PW-2 Sukhiya, who is the mother of the deceased and witnesses of the last seen. As the matter relates to last seen and that only with respect to the statement of PW-2 who had lodged FIR. Thus, the entire story is based on the statement of PW-2 Sukhiya, who is the mother of the deceased and witnesses of the last seen. It has also been averred that Prem Kumar was called from his house by Smt. Raj Kumari on 19.09.1995, but the FIR was lodged after about four days, after the recovery of the dead body of the deceased on 23.09.1995 and the appellant Chhavi Lal and Vishram was not named and during the course of investigation, their names have been disclosed. 8. Further, it has been argued that the appellants were on bail during the course of trial and they did not misuse the bail granted to them and appeals will take long time in reaching its logical conclusion. Apart from it, Smt. Raj Kumari appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 973 of 2010 is stated an old lady aged about 85 years. 9. Taking into consideration overall aspects of the matter and without commenting any further on merits of the case, we find it a fit case for bail. 10. Let Smt. Raj Kumari as well as Chhavi Lal convict of aforesaid session trial, be released on bail on each of them furnishing personal bonds and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bahraich. 11. Realisation of half of the fine is stayed and remaining half of the fine shall be deposited by the appellants within one month from the date of his release on bail. The court below is directed to transmit to this Court forthwith photocopies of bond and sureties filed by appellants to be preserved in the record maintained here.