High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Pramod Kumar Singh @ Mangal Singh v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4835 of 2005  RD-AH 14622 (29 August 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
(COURT NO. 46)
Crl. Appeal No. 4835 of 2005
Promod Kumar Singh @ Mangal Singh Vs. State
Hon'ble Amar Saran, J.
Hon'ble S.K. Jain, J.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned AGA.
The appellant is seeking bail in the aforesaid criminal appeal against the judgement passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No. 5, Varanasi, dated 25.10.2005 convicting the appellant in case crime no. 47 of 2004 in ST No. 256 of 2005 and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 5000/- under section 302 IPC.
The appellant, Pramod Kumar Singh @ Mangal Singh is said to have shot dead Om Prakash Singh on 21.4.2004 at 1.30 pm in the Veterinary Hospital, Sewapuri, Varanasi, where he was working as a compounder, because Om Prakash was unwilling to get his daughter married to the appellant and he had arranged her marriage with someone else which was to be held on 2.5.2004. The informant Kailash Narain Singh, the father of the deceased Om Prakash Singh, was present in the veterinary Hospital, Sewapuri, Varanasi, on the date and time of the incident as he had to make arrangements for the Terhi ceremony of his wife, who had died recently, which was to be held on 23.4.2004. The other witnesses, PW 2 Dharamvir Singh and Ajai Kumar Singh had also reached the hospital on the date and time of the incident because Om Prakash had promised to go out with them for making purchases after his work. At that time the appellant arrived on a red Hero motorcycle. He left the motorcycle with his companion and entered the veterinary hospital on 1.30 pm and took out a country-made pistol and pointed that at Om Prakash Singh who left his chair and rushed towards the adjoining room, but before that the appellant repeatedly fired at the deceased and said that he was facing the consequences for not letting his daughter Simmi marry the appellant. After that the appellant escaped from the hospital on the motorcycle with his companion. The informant lodged the report of this incident at PS Kapsethi on 21.4.2004 at 3.10 pm.
It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that it was unlikely that the informant would come to meet his son, the deceased Om Prakash at the hospital for the twin purposes of making purchases for Terhi framing and also for making purchases for the marriage of his granddaughter. Secondly, the site-plan does not show any window from where the witnesses are said to have seen the incident. Thirdly, the hospital employees, namely, Triloki Singh and Paras Nath, who were said to be present at the time of the incident, have not been produced in court. Fourthly, the informant and other witnesses could have easily locked the escape route of the appellant and trapped him inside the room and prevented his escape. Fifthly, the inquest does not mention crime number or the name of the informant. Lastly, it has been mentioned somewhere by a witness that the witness Kabir Chaura Hospital at 12.05 pm, which would be inconsistent with the time of incident being 1.30 pm.
The learned AGA, on the other hand, argued that if two events, Terhi of the informant's wife and the marriage of his granddaughter, are to be held in near future, he may come to town for making purchases for both the events. The appellant had a motive for committing the crime and the medical evidence corroborates the incident.
The witnesses are notoriously reluctant to give evidence in cases involving other persons and, therefore, merely because the witnesses of the hospital, the employees Triloki Singh and Paras Nath did not come to court to give evidence in the case, it is no ground to discard the prosecution version deposed to by the eye-witnesses. Also, the mere non-indication of the window in the room in the room in the site-plan is a mere lapse in the investigation because of which the eye-witness account cannot be discarded. Likewise, simply because crime number or the name of the informant is not mentioned in the inquest, it gives no ground for disbelieving the eye-witnesses. Similarly, the minor discrepancy about the time when the deceased was taken to the hospital given by rustic witnesses affords no ground for discarding the eye-witness testimony. There appears to be absolutely no reason why the appellant would be falsely implicated if he was not involved in this crime. The trial court has also given good reasons for recording the conviction of the appellant.
In this view of the matter, without commenting on the merits of the case, we hold that this is not a fit case for granting bail to the appellant during the pendency of the present appeal.
The prayer for bail to the appellant is refused.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.