Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 793 (ALL)

Rajesh Singh v. State of U. P.

2014-03-05

ARVIND KUMAR TRIPATHI II

body2014
JUDGMENT Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II),J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Sharad Dixit, learned AGA, for the State respondent and Shri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the informant. 2. This is first bail application filed on behalf of the applicant Rajesh Singh in case crime no.473 of 2012, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 302, 504, 506, 120-B, 34 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Pratapgarh. 3. According to prosecution version, FIR was lodged by Smt. Vidya Mishra in Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Pratapgarh on 14.7.2012, at about 10.30 P.M., alleging that on 14.7.2012, at about 9 P.M., she along with her husband and daughters were talking to each other in the verandah of channel gate and an electric bulb was giving light. Then Rajesh Singh, Pradeep Singh, Ashok and one unknown person came there having country made pistol in their hands. After entering into the house Rajesh Singh threatened her husband that he will not leave him alive and after putting country made pistol on his neck shot him. The other accused persons also assaulted him by the butt of country made pistol due to which her husband and one Hamid Ansari were injured. The accused persons fled away by black pulsar motor cycle. She sent her husband to the hospital along with Krishna Kumar Tripathi. Some police men also arrived there and they took the injured Hakim Ansari to the hospital. Her husband succumbed to the injuries on the way to hospital. On this, a case under Sections 452, 307, 302, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC was registered as crime no.473 of 2012. 4. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that FIR is antetimed. When inquest report was prepared crime no.472 was mentioned, but after that 472 was altered to 473 five times in the inquest report. It was further submitted that scribe of the FIR Smt. Mithila Devi is the wife of Krishna Kumar Tripathi. It was further submitted that it was Krishna Kumar Tripathi, according to the FIR, who had taken the injured (later on deceased) to the hospital. It was further submitted that scribe of the FIR Smt. Mithila Devi is the wife of Krishna Kumar Tripathi. It was further submitted that it was Krishna Kumar Tripathi, according to the FIR, who had taken the injured (later on deceased) to the hospital. Krishna Kumar Tripathi and his wife live at a distance of 40 kms from the place of occurrence and Krishna Kumar Tripathi has informed that on receiving information of this incident, he came there, so in any case, the FIR could not have been lodged by 10.30 P.M. It was further submitted that crime no.472 was a case in which NCR was registered and by the order of the court the case was converted into a case under Section 308 IPC. It was submitted that in the inquest report the facts of the case, according to the FIR, has been mentioned and the manner in which it has been inserted indicates that witnesses were made to put signatures on blank papers, and later on, matter was written. It was further submitted that there was no occasion for the Sub Inspector to prepare the inquest report, mentioning these details. According to the learned counsel for the applicant the details were mentioned just to stress the fact that the deceased was brought to the hospital at about 9: 25 P.M. It was further submitted that due to this fact entire story is doubtful. It was further submitted that during post mortem one punctured wound was also found of which there is no explanation by the prosecution. There are material improvement in the statement of the alleged eye witnesses of the occurrence, which is adding some more accused persons to be with the named accused persons, as the participant in the crime. It was further submitted that another injured person Hamid Ansari has not supported the prosecution version, as he was unable to see the assailants. It was submitted that the injured was taken to the hospital by constable Kapis Yadav, but he did not take Som Nath Mishra - the deceased to the hospital, which also creates doubt. It was further submitted that after going through the statement of eye witnesses it reflects that they were not sure that who were the real assailants and how the occurrence took place. It was further submitted that after going through the statement of eye witnesses it reflects that they were not sure that who were the real assailants and how the occurrence took place. The motive suggested by the prosecution appears to be not sufficient for commission of crime because the daughters of the deceased Pooja and Priya were alleged to be present, but Pooja was not touched by the assailants. If there was any grudge against the deceased and his family, then Pooja would have been killed. It was further submitted that the deceased and other family members were not happy with the marriage of present applicant with Pooja, and when the deceased was killed by some unknown persons, the name of present applicant was mentioned just to take revenge.The deceased was an influential person being the President of Teachers' Association and due to this, there were several enemies. The Investigating Officer has shown false recovery of country made pistol on pointing out of the applicant. In fact, it was planted by the police itself to strengthened the prosecution story. 5. Learned AGA has opposed the bail arguing that it is in record that the daughter of the deceased was firstly lured by by the applicant, who was having another wife living at that time and by deceiving her they got married in Arya Samaj Mandir. It was further stated that when she came to know about earlier marriage of the applicant, she left him and came back to her parents house. This incident made the applicant angry and prior to the incident he had tried to abduct her forcefully, but due to resistance, he did not succeed. Due to this, this occurrence has taken place, and it was the present applicant, who is alleged to have shot the deceased along with one Naushad. There are two firearm wounds on the body of the deceased. It was further submitted that there is extra judicial confession by the present applicant before one Sanjiv Tripathi in which he has admitted his guilt. It was further submitted that the alleged correction/interpolation of crime number in the inquest report is not material at this stage, because crime no.472 was registered in the police station, at about 12.40 P.M. It was further submitted that this is a fact, which can only be explained by the person, who has prepared the inquest report during trial. 6. It was further submitted that the alleged correction/interpolation of crime number in the inquest report is not material at this stage, because crime no.472 was registered in the police station, at about 12.40 P.M. It was further submitted that this is a fact, which can only be explained by the person, who has prepared the inquest report during trial. 6. Refuting the argument, learned counsel for the applicant, further submitted that the person before whom extra judicial confession is alleged to have been made is the relative of the deceased. Krishna Kumar Tripathi and his wife Smt. Mithila Devi are also relatives of the deceased, so there is no independent witness. 7. Learned AGA submitted that occurrence has taken place in the house of the deceased in the night, at about 9 P.M., so the wife of the deceased and two daughters are the natural and eye witnesses and it is very natural that wife of the deceased will inform her near and dear on mobile and through any fast vehicle any body can reach within a very short time. It is also very natural that the applicant will make extra judicial confession before the relatives of the deceased, so as he will be one of the few persons, who can pressurize the family members of the deceased. 8. A perusal of record reveals that entry of crime no.472 of 2012 was made in General Diary at no.27 at 12.40 P.M., and by this entry NCR was converted into the case under Sections 308, 323, 504, 506 IPC. In this case, eye witnesses are present. They have recognized the present applicant to be the person, who fired upon the deceased along with one Naushad, in the light of electric bulb. Any defect in investigation or any laches on the part of person preparing inquest report will not be fatal at this stage in the light of the statement of eye witnesses. Without giving the police personnel any chance of explanation, there case cannot be thrown away or, no adverse inference can be drawn. There is extra judicial confession of the present applicant before one Sanjiv Kumar Tripathi and on the pointing out of the applicant country made pistol has also been recovered. The daughters of the deceased have categorically pointed out the motive for this incident. There is extra judicial confession of the present applicant before one Sanjiv Kumar Tripathi and on the pointing out of the applicant country made pistol has also been recovered. The daughters of the deceased have categorically pointed out the motive for this incident. It is pertinent to note that the inquest report was prepared in mortuary of District Hospital, Pratapgarh on 14.7.2012 between 10.30 P.M. and 10.45 P.M. 9. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and considering the statements of the eye witnesses, without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicant is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. The bail application is rejected.