Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VIJAI PANDEY versus STATE OF U.P.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Vijai Pandey v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1495 of 2000 [2005] RD-AH 767 (16 March 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. 1495 of 2000

Vijai Pandey Versus State of U.P.

Hon'ble R. C. Deepak, J.

Hon'ble M. K. Mittal, J.

The accused  appellant Vijay son of late Jagdish Prasad Pandey has prayed for release on bail during the pendency of his criminal appeal no. 1495 of 2000 filed against his conviction under Sections 302, 307, 498-A IPC and sentence of life imprisonment, seven years and two years R.I. respectively in S.T. No. 444 of 1998 by the Court of IVth Addl. District and Session Judge, Allahabad.

We have heard Sri A. K. Pandey, learned counsel for the accused appellant, Sri B.A.Khan, learned counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

The prosecution case is that the deceased Smt Sunita was married to the accused appellant about 7-8 years prior to the incident. Since the demand for dowry could not be fulfilled, the accused had left Smt. Sunita and she was living at her parental house. On 23.10.1997 at about 10.30 a.m., the complainant and his sister Smt. Sunita were going to Civil Lines. When they reached infront of the house of Ram Sumer Singh, at some distance from their house, the accused came on Scooter. He stopped there and said that he would not leave Sunita alive and fired at her with country made pistol. She received shot and fell down on the road. When the complainant advanced towards the accused, he took out another country made pistol but in the scuffle, the barrel opened and the cartridge fell down. However, the accused gave but blow on the skull of the complainant. At the alarm raised, the mother of the deceased also came along with other persons. Smt Sunita was shifted to Swaroop Rani Hospital but the Doctor declared her dead. The F.I.R. was lodged by the complainant same day at 12.05 p.m. at P.S. Georgetown, District Allahabad. The postmortem report of Smt. Sunita shows that she received fire arm wound of entry of 1'' X 1'' X cavity deep on left side front of the chest. She also received one abraded contusion of 3 '' X 1-1/2 '' on outer surface of right elbow. The complainant Sunil received lacerated wound on his skull and also traumatic swelling in front of right shoulder.

Learned counsel for the accused appellant has contended that accused has been falsely implicated and that the prosecution witnesses are not reliable and that the complainant was not present at the spot.

Learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. contended that the complainant was present at the time of incident and he was also injured by the accused and there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the complainant. There is nothing in the statement of the complainant to show that he was not present at the spot or that he is not speaking truth. They further contended that the accused had left his country made pistol at the place of occurance and the report of the ballistic expert shows that the cartridge fired by the accused was from this country made pistol and in this connection he referred to  the report (Ex-Ka-18). It is a day light murder and the accused had the motive also as he suspected the fidelity of the deceased.

In view of the 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 appellant is not entitled to bail at this stage; therefore, the bail application is liable to be rejected.

Bail application of accused Vijai Pandey is hereby rejected.

Dated:- 16.3.2005.

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.