High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Babu @ Banjara & Another v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 3292 of 2001  RD-AH 759 (16 March 2005)
Court No. 46.
Criminal Appeal No. 3292 of 2001
Ram Babu @ Banjara and others Versus State of U.P.
Hon'ble R. C. Deepak, J.
Hon'ble M. K. Mittal, J.
We have heard Sri Prabhat Agarwal, learned counsel for the accused appellant, Sri Merajuddin, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The accused appellants Sohan and Rambabu are alleged to have given axe and tabbal blows to Smt. Ram Janki on 28.5.2000 at about 7 p.m., when she had gone to ease herself, in the field of Raghuraj. On the alarm raised by Smt. Ram Janki, the complainant Sudama, her husband and Km. Manju and Km. Ansuiya the daughters of the complainant, Aatma Singh the neighbour and others reached the place of occurance and saw the accused giving axe and tabbal blows. When they were challenged, the accused ran away. According to the complainant in the year 1996, Smt. Ansuiya and Km Sulekha wife and daughter of Subhash Babu his younger brother were murdered, and in that case the complainant and his wife were challaned. The case was pending at the time of this incident. Smt. Ansuiya was mausi of the accused Sohan and on that account his wife was murdered by the accused Sohan and his friend Rambabu. The F.I.R. in this case was lodged the same night at 1.45 a.m., the distance between the place of occurance and Police Station being 15 kilometers. The postmortem report shows that Smt. Ansuiya received six incised wounds on her head, left shoulder, left forearm. She also received two contusion on the back of chest.
Learned counsel for the accused appellant has vehemently argued that the accused has been falsely implicated and that there is no mention of the fact as to who wielded tabbal in the F.I.R., but learned A.G.A. contended that this contention is not correct as in the F.I.R., the tabbal has been assigned to accused Ram Babu. The evidence on record shows that axe and tabbal were also recovered at the pointing out of the accused persons. Learned counsel for the accused appellant further contended that there was no light and the witnesses could not have seen the incident. But according to learned A.G.A., incident took place outside the village in the field of Raghuraj and when the alarm was raised by Smt. Ram Janki, the complainant, his daughters and others reached the place of occurance and saw the incident and brought the injured to the house but before she could be shifted to the hospital, she died. The complainant Sudama P.W.-1 and his daughter Km. Ansuiya P.w.-2 have stated that they saw the accused giving axe and tabbal blows and there is no infirmity in their testimony. As far as the question of light is concerned, learned A.G.A. contended that the incident took place at about 7 p.m. in the month of May and there remains sufficient light even at 7 p.m. He further contended that there is no reason for false implication of the accused appellants.
In view of facts and circumstances of the case, but without prejudice to the merits of the appeal in any manner whatsoever, we are of the opinion that the accused appellants are not entitled to bail at this stage; therefore, the bail application is liable to be rejected.
Bail application of accused appellants is hereby rejected.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.