Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

TEJ PAL & OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Tej Pal & Others v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 4666 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 1036 (16 January 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Reserved.

Court No. 41

Criminal Appeal No. 4666 of 2006

Tej Pal and others Vs State of U.P.

Hon'ble M. K. Mittal, J.

Appellants Tejpal and Devendra have prayed for released on bail in criminal appeal no. 4666 of 2006 filed by them against the judgement and order dated 10.8.2006 passed in S. T. No. 108 of 2002 by Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. 3, Badaun. In this appeal the two co accused Arbind and Krishna have already been directed to be released on bail by order dated 24.8.2006.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Brief facts of the case are that the accused appellants on 24.2.2001 at about 10 a.m. had come to the house of Khemkharan deceased and invited him for a feast in connection with a marriage of the accused Krishna, son of Tejpal. Khemkharan refused the invitation and the accused person gave him lathi blows causing him injuries. When the informant Hanshraj who is the brother of the deceased,  tried to save him, he was given lathi blows by the accused Arvind and Krishna. Since the condition of Khemkharan was serious, he was taken to District Hospital, Budaun where he was admitted but he was referred for further treatment and management to District Hospital, Bareilly. He was taken  to Bareilly but he succumbed to his injuries on 25.2.2001 before he could be admitted in the hospital there.

Injury report and post mortem report show that the deceased received injury on his head also which resulted in fracture of parietal and occipital bones.

Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the prosecution case is not probable and that the appellants have been wrongly convicted in this case. According to him it is not probable  that the accused would carry lathi with them while going to invite a person for a feast. But it has come in evidence of Hanshraj, P.W.-1 and Ved Kumari, P.W.-2 as pointed out by the learned counsel for the State that the accused were armed with Lathi when they came to invite and when Khemkaran refused he was given lathi blows by these two persons. Although it has not come in evidence as to whose lathi out of these two appellants landed on the head of the deceased but both the witnesses have stated that both of them had attacked Khemkharan with Lathi and in the circumstances both are liable for the act done by them.

Learned A.G.A. has also stated that it appears that when Khemkaran was invited for feast, he refused and it annoyed the accused persons. They took it as their insult and caused injuries. As far as the facts of marriage of Krishna and the coming of the accused persons to invite Khemkharan are concerned, these facts have not been disputed and have not been challenged in the cross examination of the witnesses.

Learned A.G.A. has also stated that the prosecution witness Hanshraj and Smt. Ved Kumari are reliable witnesses and there is no reason to disbelieve them.

Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that in this case there were other independent witnesses but they have not been examined and the witnesses are related witnesses. But it has come in evidence that the other witnesses who were present at the time of the incident were family members of the accused persons themselves. Simply on the ground that Hanshraj   and Ved Kumari are near relations of the deceased their testimony cannot be discarded.

In the circumstances of the case, but without prejudice to the merits of the case, I do  not find any ground to release the appellants on bail at this stage and their prayer for bail is liable to be refused and is hereby refused.

Dated: 16.1.2007

RKS/4666/06


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.