High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Km. Anju v. State Of U.P. & Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 10620 of 2006  RD-AH 16585 (21 September 2006)
( Court No. 48)
Criminal Misc. Application No. 11583 of 2006
Radhey Shyam Pandey
and 2 others. .......... ........ Applicants.
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
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.