Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VIJAY PAL versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Vijay Pal v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 6217 of 2004 [2005] RD-AH 501 (22 February 2005)

 

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

Court No. 46.

Criminal Appeal No. 6217 of 2004

Vijay Pal Versus State of U.P.

Hon'ble R. C. Deepak, J.

Hon'ble M. K. Mittal, J.

We  have heard Sri Ramanuj Tripathi, learned counsel for the accused appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

The prosecution case is that on 9.9.2000 at about 3 p.m.,  Vijay Pal Singh, Ajit and Bachchu Singh sons of Hori Lal and Hori Lal son of Sewaram were quarrelling with Pappu son of Nanhu Singh, on account of some dispute between the children. The houses of Pappu and accused appellant Vijay Pal Singh are situated nearby across the rasta. Vijay Pal Singh and others were beating Pappu and villagers had also collected there at that time. At that time Nanhu Singh returned from village Paharipur and on seeing the crowed and hearing the noise of his son went there to save him. At that time, Vijay Pal Singh brought the gun from his house and fired at Nanhu Singh in his chest and he died on the spot. The second fire made by Vijay Pal Singh hit Pappu and he was injured. First Information Report was lodged by Ganga Prasad uncle of Nanhu Singh, the same day at 4.35 p.m. the distance between the place of occurance and the Police Station being 5 K.m.

Learned counsel for the accused appellant has contended that the accused has been falsely implicated and that he be released on bail during the pendency of the appeal.

According to the learned counsel for the  accused appellant Pappu son of Nanhu Singh, Rinku son of Jaipal, Jaipal son of Yadram and Suresh son of Ganga Prasad came to his house on 9.9.2000 at about 3 p.m and molested the daughter of the co-accused Hori Lal father of the accused appellant. These persons took off her clothes and threw her on the ground. At the noise, Hori Lal and his sons and others came and there was some Marpit and some villagers fired and shots hit Nanhu Singh and also Pappu. In this connection, a report was given by Smt. Bhagwan Devi wife of Hori Lal to the Senior Superintendent of Police. Copy of the report dated 10.9.2004 has been filed as annexure 1 to the supplementary affidavit.

Learned A.G.A. contended that the prosecution case has been proved by the complainant Ganga Prasad, injured witness Pappu and independent  witness Harnarayan P.W.-3. He also contended that evidence on record shows that Nanhu Singh died as a result of Gun shot injury caused by Vijay Pal Singh. It has also come in evidence that, the accused appellant Vijay Pal Singh went in side the house and brought the Gun of his father and fired. Learned A.G.A. further contended that defence case as taken is not probable and is after thought and cannot be accepted.

Learned counsel for the accused appellant could not show any infirmity in the statement of the witnesses given on oath. He also could not show as to when the application was given to the Senior Superintendent of Police by Smt. Bhagwan Devi. Although it bears the date 10.9.2000 but the learned counsel could not show any evidence as to when it was sent to Senior Superintendent of Police, or when it was received in his office. Admittedly, the application under section 156 (3) was filed after one month on 10.10.2004. Learned counsel for the accused appellant further contended that in this incident Hori Lal also received injuries but the injuries were found simple in nature. Admittedly, there was some scuffle and even if Hori Lal received any injury it does not support the defence case. Moreover, the defence version as taken in the application of Smt Bhagwan Devi has not been put to prosecution witness Pappu.

We have discussed only the infirmities available on record, but without prejudice to the merit of the appeal in any manner whatsoever, we are of the opinion that the accused appellant  is not entitled to bail at this stage; therefore, the bail application is liable to be rejected.

Bail application of accused Vijay Pal is hereby rejected.

Dated: 22.2.2005

RKS/


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.