HARI PRAKASH & ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Hari Prakash & Another v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7561 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 16073 (27 September 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 AT ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Amar Saran, J.

Hon'ble S.K. Jain, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record of the case.

It is submitted that it is a night incident, which took place at 1.00 A.M., in the night of 25/26.5.1997 and the report was lodged next morning at 9.30 A.M. at police station Bindki.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that as per his own admission P.W. 1, Vijay Bahadur, the complainant has filed an affidavit before the Chief Judicial Magistrate indicating therein that some unknown persons have committed the murder his father, the deceased.

So far as P.W. 2, Bhim Singh, who was the only remaining witness is concerned, he has stated in his cross-examination that till seven months later, when he was called to give his evidence, he did not know that he was a witness of the case.

However by strange reasoning the trial judge has accepted his testimony that he was not falsely interested in prosecuting the appellants because he did not care to become inquest witness etc. in the case. He is also a related witness, who reside 50 kms. away and is said to be present in the village only by chance. P.W. 2, Bhim Singh, himself admits that he was an accused in the murder case of father of the appellants, hence there would be reason for his false implication of the accused.

In this view of the matter, without making any comment on the merits of the case let the appellants Hari Prakash and Satya Prakash, convicted and sentenced in S.T. No. 194 of 1998, be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

Realization of half of the fine shall also remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal.

Dated: 27.9.2007

Ishrat/7/7561/06

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

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.