Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Prem Chand & Another v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 5432 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 12300 (26 July 2006)


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).



Hon'ble Mukteshwar Prasad, J.

Hon'ble K.N. Ojha, J.

We have heard Sri D.S. Tiwari and Sri Ramji Saxena, learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State. We have gone through the impugned judgment as well as record of the trial court.

It has been contended on behalf of the appellants, who are real brothers, that there was no motive for the appellants to commit murder of Phoollu @ Phool Chand and no light was available to the eyewitnesses to see and identify the real assailants. The lantern, which is said to be the source of light, was not produced in the court. Both P.W.1 Munna Lal and P.W. 2 Jawahar are sons of the deceased and their presence at the scene of incident appears to be highly doubtful. No independent witness, including Munshi and Omprakash, who were named in the FIR, was examined on behalf of the prosecution. The FIR was ante timed and the I.O. reached the village in question in the morning and started preparation of inquest report. The deceased had committed murder of the father of the appellants and was acquitted by the trial court and as such, the appellants were falsely implicated. The two sons of the deceased, who were allegedly present at the scene of incident, sustained no injury. Moreover, the medical evidence does not support and corroborate the prosecution version.

On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has submitted that appellants had a very strong motive to commit murder in question and they were named in the FIR, which was lodged after an hour of the incident. A lantern was burning there and this fact was mentioned in the FIR itself. The appellants being co-villagers of the eyewitnesses were well known and there was no difficulty in identifying them. The medical evidence is consistent with the prosecution version.

We have given our anxious considerations to the entire submissions made on behalf of the parties. We have scrutinized the evidence on record carefully. In our opinion, none of the appellants deserve bail and as such, their prayer for bail is rejected at this stage.




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 |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.