Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KM. ANJU versus STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Km. Anju v. State Of U.P. & Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 10620 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 16585 (21 September 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

 ( Court No. 48)

Criminal Misc. Application  No.  11583  of 2006

Radhey Shyam Pandey

and 2 others. ..........  ........ Applicants.

Vs.

1. State of U.P.

2. Ram Prasad yadav  son of Shiv

Raj Yadav, R/o Village3 Panditpur, P.S.

Chauri Chaura ,

District Gorakhpur ......Opp.parties -Complainant.

*************

Hon'ble Barkat Ali Zaidi, J

1. Heard Sri V.B. Shukla, advocate for all the applicants and Sri Patanjali Mishra, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. In proceedings under Sections 307,504,506 and 352 I.P.C., Police Station Chauri Chaura District Gorakhpur, arising out of Criminal Case  No. 7258 of 2005, State Vs. Radhey Shyam and others, presently pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur , the prosecution allegation was that the applicant Radhey Shyam,  armed with his licencee gun and applicant Lal Bahadur, Jai Prakash  and one  Subhash with their country made revolvers, fired at Yogendra. In consequence where of, he sustained a gun shot injury in his left arm. This incident is said to have taken place on 4.1.2004 at 18.45.

3. The evidence produced before the investigating officer during investigation was that co-accused Subhash was at Ashansole for appearing in examination conducted by the Railways.  This plea of alibi found favour with the police who exonerated co-accused Subhash, while filing charge-sheet against the applicants.

4. The contention of the applicants is that Subhash who is assigned the role of firing at Yogesh and injuring him, once released, the applicants should also be released on that count.

5. The documents showing the presence of Subhash at Ashansole have3 not been filed by the applicants and seem to have been deliberately withheld. The applicants should have filed all documents about the presence of co-accused Subhash at Ashansole at the time of incident, if they wanted to rely on the same. The court will not accept such perfunctory evidence of alibi. The investigating  officer seems to have accepted the plea of alibi without examining in depth all the surrounding circumstances.

6. The whole case of an alibi needs much more thorough examination of ascertaining its veracity. The mere  fact that an alibi of a co-accused has  been accepted will not provide ground for the release of the other co-accused much less so, in proceedings under Section 482  Cr.P.C. before this Court.

7. It will be for the trial court to examine after evidence has been led , as to what the situation is.

8. The contention of the applicant cannot, therefore, be accepted. Application dismissed.

Dt:      3rd October, 2006

  n.u.


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.