High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Nath v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2615 of 2006  RD-AH 10113 (23 May 2006)
Criminal Appeal No. 2615 of 2006
Ram Nath Vs. State of U.P.
Defective Criminal Appeal No.174 of 2006
Ram Awatar Vs. State of U.P.
Defective Criminal Appeal No.165 of 2006
Uma Shanker Vs. State of U.P.
Defective Criminal Appeal No.119 of 2006
Rinku Vs. State of U.P.
Criminal Appeal No.1689 of 2006
Raju Vs. State of U.P.
Hon'ble Mukteshwar Prasad, J.
Hon'ble Vinod Prasad, J.
Criminal Appeal No. 2615 of 2006 Ram Nath Vs. State of U.P. is connected with Defective Criminal Appeals No. 174 of 2006 Ram Awatar Vs. State of U.P., Defective Criminal Appeal No.165 of 2006 Uma Shanker Vs. State of U.P., Defective Criminal Appeal No. 119 of 2006 Rinku Vs. State of U.P. and Criminal Appeal No. 1689 of 2006 Raju Vs. State of U.P.
All the appeals arises out of the same impugned judgment and order passed in Sessions Trial No. 287 of 2001, State Vs. Uma Shanker and others, under Section 147, 148, 149 and 302 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(5) S.C./S.T. Act, decided by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Etawah, vide his impugned judgment and order dated 10.3.2006. Hence, prayer for bail of all the appellants, in all the appeals are being disposed of by this common order. Since in the defective Criminal Appeal No. 165 of 2006, 174 of 2006, 119 of 2006 the defect is reported to be non-filing of certified copy of the impugned judgment, therefore, we exempt the filing of the copy of the said judgment in all these defective criminal appeals no. 165 of 2006 Uma Shanker Vs. State of U.P., 174 of 2006 Ram Awtar Vs. State of U.P. and 119 of 2006 Rinku Vs. State of U.P. as the copy of the said impugned judgments is filed in the Regular Appeal no. 1689 of 2006. Hence, office of this Court is directed to give regular numbers to these defective criminal appeals.
We have heard Sri Dilip Kumar on behalf of all the appellants in all these appeals and the learned A.G.A. in opposition.
Sri Dilip Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants contended that in this case, all the appellants have been falsely implicated due to enmity. He further contended that informant was not an eyewitness of the incident. He also contended that in this case Babu Ram was the star witness of the prosecution who was accompanying the deceased Ram Gopal but for the reasons best known to the prosecution Babu Ram was not examined as a witness in the trial. He also contended that the assault was made inside the room and when the villagers collected and the room was got opened none of the accused were found inside the room. He also contended that the said room was found locked from outside and hence, the prosecution case is false. He also contended that in this case, there was no injury by basula. He invited the attention of the Court on the evidences recorded in the trial to canvass that the witnesses could not have seen the incident from a distance of hundred yards, as there are six intervening houses in between the place of the incident and the place from where the witnesses were said to have seen the incident. He further contended that since the prosecution has withheld its star witness and had produced only interested and inimical witnesses, therefore, the appellants are entitled to bail, as they were on bail during the trial and they had not misused the liberty of bail. He also submitted that the appeal of all the appellants are not likely to be heard in near future.
On the other hand, learned A.G.A. contended that in this case, Sone Lal, who was father of the informant Ram Shanker and deceased Ram Gopal was murdered by the appellant Uma Shanker and others. Regarding the death of the father Sone Lal, the deceased of the present case Ram Gopal had lodged the F.I.R. and because of that the accused persons bore enmity with him and he has been done to death. He also contended that it is a day light incident and the medical report is consistent with the prosecution version. He further contended that in this case the house where the dead body was found was that of Ram Awatar appellant and the three appellants had pleaded alibi, which they had failed to substantiate. He contended that the murder took place because the accused wanted to annihilate the informant of the earlier murder case and hence, they had tampered with evidence and misused the liberty of bail, which was granted to them in the earlier murder case. Learned A.G.A. also contended that in the site plan it had been shown that the place from where the witnesses had seen the incident there was no hindrance, which had hampered seeing the incident by them. He submitted that the appellants do not deserve bail at all. Therefore, their bail prayer deserves to be rejected.
We have given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions raised by both sides and have perused the record of the trial court along with the evidences. In this case, we find no reason to grant bail to the appellants, namely, Uma Shanker, Ram Awatar, Rinku and Raju. Hence, the bail prayer of these appellants in Criminal Appeals defective numbers 165 of 2006 Uma Shanker Vs. State of U.P., 174 of 2006 Ram Awatar Vs. State of U.P., 119 of 2006 Rinku Vs. State of U.P., 1689 of 2006 Raju Vs. State of U.P. is rejected
However, so far as appellant Ram Nath in Criminal Appeal No. 2615 of 2006 is concerned, we find that he was said to be armed with a basula, which is an implement of carpenters. It is a tool with a short handle and we are extremely in doubt that when the longish weapons like axe, saria, belcha and danda were being used any person armed with basula will also get an opportunity to assault the deceased as there was very likelihood of his getting injuries in the assault. Moreover, we find that the said basula was found inside the room where the murder was committed but the same was not blood stained at all. In this case, the deceased had been murdered in a merciless manner and he had received as many as 15 injuries on his body. Moreover from the statement of the doctor at page 15 of the judgment we find that he had not assigned any injury, which could be caused by basula. All the injuries sustained by the deceased were mentioned by him and in his opinion at page 15 of the impugned judgment no injury was caused by basula. In this view of the matter, by way of abundant caution of extreme limit, though we do not express any final opinion as such, and also keeping in view of the fact that the accused armed with basula, namely, Ram Nath was on bail during the trial and he lives separately from his other co-accused brother Ram Awatar and that he was not involved in the earlier murder case we think it appropriate to release him on bail on the conditions mentioned below in this order.
Let the appellant Ram Nath be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 100000/-(one lac) and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of C.J.M. Etawah on the following conditions:
1. that during the pendency of the appeal, he will report to the police station Bharthana, district Etawah once in every month on a date and time to be fixed by the officer-in-charge of the said police station.
2. that he will not leave district Etawah without the permission of C.J.M. Etawah.
3. that he will not threaten the witnesses of the earlier murder case as well as of the present murder case.
In the event of breach of any of these conditions, this bail granted to the said appellant Ram Nath will stand automatically cancelled.
Dt. 23rd May 2006
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.