Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2833 (ALL)

Shiv Sagar v. State of U. P.

2014-09-11

AMAR SARAN, KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE

body2014
JUDGMENT Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record. 2. Prayer for bail with regard to appellant Pintoo and the prayer for bail in Second Bail Application preferred on behalf of appellants Shiv Sagar and Anand Bihari is being disposed of by the common order as they arise out of the common judgement of conviction. 3. The prosecution story in brief seems to be that on 8.8.2006 at about 6.00 p.m because of the bitterness generated by village elections some squabble took place between one of the deceased Rama Nand and the co-accused Manju's sister, namely, Rekha in which abuses were exchanged. Infuriated and enraged by the same, the aforesaid accused Manju along with co-accused Banwari Lal, Sanjay and the three appellants whose bail prayer is being considered went to the house of Rama Nand and from there they dragged him and his relative PremChand (another deceased) and took them to a grove beating and thrashing them. Accused Banwari and Manju fired at them but the shots missed the target. Thereafter the accused appellants, namely, Shiv Sagar armed with Saria, Anand Bihari and Pintoo armed with lathi and co-accused Sanjay armed with Farsa, made a deadly assault on Rama Nand and Prem Chand who succumbed to the injuries inflicted on them while being carried to the hospital. The FIR was lodged on the same day at 8.15 p.m at P.S. Manjhanpur District Kaushambi by the first informant. Relying upon the eyewitness account of the incident given in the trial court by the witnesses, conviction has been awarded to the appellants u/s 302/149 IPC and also under other associate sections of the Penal Code. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that there are several injuries found on the deceased persons but the evidence produced by the prosecution does not specify as to who is the author of those fatal injuries received by the deceased persons which resulted in their death. It has also been submitted that all the injuries were caused by blunt weapons and not by deadly weapons which indicated that the aggressors did not have the intention to kill the deceased. It was also pointed out that the deceased had some bad antecedents and the co-accused persons Sanjay and Manju Patel have already been granted bail on 3.12.2009. It has also been submitted that all the injuries were caused by blunt weapons and not by deadly weapons which indicated that the aggressors did not have the intention to kill the deceased. It was also pointed out that the deceased had some bad antecedents and the co-accused persons Sanjay and Manju Patel have already been granted bail on 3.12.2009. Lastly it has been argued that the appellants have already been in jail for about 8 years. 5. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and has emphasized upon the gravity of the offence committed by the appellants. The submission is that it is a case of double murder and the post mortem report reveals that multiple grievous injuries have been inflicted on both the deceased. There were 12 injuries found on the body of Rama Nand and 8 injuries on the cadaver of Prem Chand. The enormity of the injuries and their severity can be gauged from the fact that the left jaw of deceased Rama Nand and the right maxilla bone of his face, his radius and ulna bones and his tibia and fibula of the leg were all found fractured. There were not less than four injuries inflicted on the head including three lacerated wounds. Several other lacerated wounds were found on the other parts of the body. Similarly the autopsy of the deceased Prem Chand revealed the fracture of occipital bone on the head and also the fracture of tibia and fibula of the leg. This deceased too apart from having injuries all over the body had received injuries on the head. The contention is that the enormity of the injuries, the site where they have been inflicted and their severity does not admit of any other inference than the one that has been drawn by the trial court that the appellants had killed both the deceased with intention to cause their death. The appellants Shiv Sagar, Anand Bihari and Pintoo all of them used their respective blunt weapons which they wielded in a deadly manner and the post mortem report of both the deceased lends clinching corroboration to their participation in the crime as the same reveals multiple lacerated wounds and contusions strewn all over the body. The appellants Shiv Sagar, Anand Bihari and Pintoo all of them used their respective blunt weapons which they wielded in a deadly manner and the post mortem report of both the deceased lends clinching corroboration to their participation in the crime as the same reveals multiple lacerated wounds and contusions strewn all over the body. Further submission is that all the three appellants in question have jointly attacked on the deceased in a concerted manner with common object and same intention and it is wholly immaterial in a case like this as to which blow was inflicted by whom. In a multiple injury case like the one at hand it also sounds very unnatural, unreasonable and therefore unjustified that the witnesses should be expected to specify as to which blow of whom landed on which part of the bodies of the two deceased. 6. According to learned AGA the case of co-accused who have been granted bail is entirely on a different footing as the injuries received by the deceased persons were not attributable to the weapons used by them. The bad antecedents of the deceased referred to by the appellants counsel also can not serve as a vindication to commit their brutal murder nor can it ever legitimise the display of such rank violence. 7. It has also been submitted that in view of the gravity of the offence and the ruthless cruelty displayed by the three appellants the detention of 8 years cannot constitute a sufficient ground on the sole basis of which the appellants may be released on bail 8. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case at this stage, we are not inclined to grant bail to the appellants. Therefore, the bail prayers of appellants Shiv Sagar, Anand Bihari and Pintoo is refused. 9. However, the hearing of the appeal is expedited. Office is directed to prepare the paper book within three months and to list the appeal along with connected appeal for hearing thereafter before appropriate bench.