Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2794 (ALL)

Bhajan Lal v. State of U. P.

2016-08-11

RAVINDRA NATH KAKKAR, VIKRAM NATH

body2016
JUDGMENT Heard Sri Sangam Lal Kesarwani, learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record for consideration of the prayer of bail to the appellant during the pendency of appeal. 2. The appellant Bhajan Lal has been convicted under sections 302/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.10,000/-; he has also been convicted under section 307/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous life imprisonment and in the event of default of payment of the fine amount to undergo additional imprisonment of one year vide judgment and order dated 25.10.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Rampur in Sessions Trial No.222 of 2006, State of U.P. vs. Bhajan Lal, arising out of Case Crime No.84 of 2006, under sections 302, 307 IPC, P.S. Milak, District Rampur. 3. The prosecution story in brief is that Om Prakash gave a written report against unknown persons to the police station on 1.2.2006 stating that on the previous night (31.1.2006) his father-in-law Bulaki Ram, mother-in-law Shanti Devi, sister-in-law Km. Premwati and his daughter Km. Neera, who were sleeping in Varandha of the house have been done to death by crushing their head with hard and blunt object. His another sister-in-law Km. Chandrawati has received grievous injuries. All the four dead bodies are lying at the house of Bhajan Lal and the injured Km. Chandrawati is also lying at the house of Bhajan Lal in unconscious state. 4. The matter was investigated. Km. Chandrawati who is said to have gained her consciousness after 10 days took the name of the sole appellant Bhajan Lal of having administered sleeping pills to the 4 deceased in the form of Prasad of a Pooja and after they were fast asleep he crushed their head with bricks and hard object. Charge sheet was submitted against the appellant. 5. During trial the prosecution examined the injured Km. Chandrawati as PW 1. In her statement before the court she stated that at about 8.00 p.m. the appellant along with Ramesh, Suresh and Premi came to her house, at that time her father was in Varandah and she along with her mother, sister and sister's daughter was in kitchen. 5. During trial the prosecution examined the injured Km. Chandrawati as PW 1. In her statement before the court she stated that at about 8.00 p.m. the appellant along with Ramesh, Suresh and Premi came to her house, at that time her father was in Varandah and she along with her mother, sister and sister's daughter was in kitchen. The 4 accused named above started hitting her father and when the other family members came to the rescue of her father they were also hit in which 4 of them died and she received grievous injuries. The other 3 named accused in the statement of the PW 1 i.e. Ramesh, Suresh and Premi were summoned under section 319 Cr.P.C., however, their trial was separated. The Trial Judge recorded the conviction and sentence as already noted above. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution had been altering its stand from stage to stage. The FIR mentioned that the incident was of middle of night and was against unknown persons. During investigation Km. Chandrawati the sole eyewitness took the name of the appellant Bhajan Lal only and had narrated that after administering sleeping pills to the deceased the crime was committed by Bhajan Lal. However, during trial PW 1 Km. Chandrawati took a completely different stand and stated that at about 8.00 p.m. the incident took place when every member of the family was awake and the 4 persons had assaulted them. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that on the basis of the aforementioned evidence on record the Trial Judge erred in recording conviction and sentence. It is also submitted that Km. Chandrawati was a minor girl aged about 15 years at the time of recording her statement. Her statement was recorded after 8-9 months of the incident and by that time she could have been tutored to give her statement. It is also submitted that even if the statement of PW 1 is said to be correct it would not be probable nor amenable to prudence that 4 persons in a house could have been assaulted by blunt object or bricks by 4 separate persons causing so many casualties and an injured. It is also submitted that the prosecution story as set up is highly improbable. It is also submitted that the prosecution story as set up is highly improbable. It has lastly been submitted that the appellant has been continuously in jail for last about 10 years and during trial he had also remained in jail. He further submitted that as there is no likelihood of appeal being heard at an early date, which is already pending for the last more than 7 and 1/2 years, the accused appellant may be enlarged on bail. Reliance has been placed upon the following decisions of the Apex Court and this Court : i) Smt. Akhtari Bi vs. State of M.P. [2001(2) JIC 163 (SC)] ii) Takht Singh and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [2001 (1)) SCC 463. iii) Kamal vs. State of Haryana [ 2004 (13) SCC 526 ] iv) Order dated 1.10.2010 passed by the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.2356 of 2010 (Kushal Singh vs. State of U.P.) v) Order dated 4.3.2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal u/s 374 Cr.P.C. No.1502 of 2006 (Raja Ram Yadav vs. State of U.P.) vi) Order dated 5.10.2010 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal u/s 374 Cr.P.C. No.8242 of 2007 (Dharmendra Singh vs. State of U.P.) vii) Order dated 21.9.2012 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal u/s 374 Cr. P.C. No.451 of 2006 (Jannat Ali & others vs. State of U.P.) 7. Learned AGA on the other hand opposed the bail and has submitted that there is no reason why PW 1 will implicate the appellant who was of the same family and closely related to her. It is also submitted that there is statement of the PW 1 which is liable to be relied upon and the Trial Court has rightly recorded the conviction. The appellant having committed gruesome murder of 4 persons would not be entitled of any leniency from this Court. 8. From a perusal of the aforementioned judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and by the Division Benches of this Court, it is apparent that the consistent view is that where the accused has spent substantial period of sentence in jail and there is little likelihood of the appeal being heard or the trial being concluded, as the case may be, the accused may be enlarged on bail. In all the above cases different periods have been held to be substantial period ranging from three years and three months to eight years. 9. In the present case the appellant has already spent about 10 years incarceration and we have been informed that there is little hope of the present appeal being heard at an early date or in near future. Accordingly having considered the submissions and following the consistent view of the Apex Court and this Court we are of the view that the accused appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail. 10. Let the accused appellant Bhajan Lal convicted and sentenced vide judgment and order dated 25.10.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Rampur in Sessions Trial No.222 of 2006, State of U.P. vs. Bhajan Lal, arising out of Case Crime No.84 of 2006, under sections 302, 307 IPC, P.S. Milak, District Rampur, during the pendency of appeal, be admitted on bail subject to his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the loike amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.