Meraj vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 18862 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:48699
 
Court No. - 15
 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1180 of 2022
 
Appellant :- Meraj
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow And Anr.
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Farooq Ayoob
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

1. Learned A.G.A. has filed counter affidavit today in Court, which is taken on record.

2. As per the office report dated 12.10.2022 notice sent to the opposite party No. 2 has been served personally, but till date neither any counsel has appeared nor any counter affidavit has been filed on her behalf. It appears that opposite party No. 2 is not interested to contest the case.

3. Heard Shri Farooq Ayoob, the learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Ashok Srivastava, the learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party No. 1 and perused the entire record.

4. The present criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred against the impugned order dated 21.09.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, (S.C./S.T. Act), Barabanki in Bail Application No. 16914 of 2021, arising out of Case Crime No. 225 of 2021, under Section 302 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(V) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Police Station Jaidpur, District Barabanki, whereby the bail application of the appellant has been rejected.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case. There is no direct evidence to connect the appellant in the crime. It is purely a case of circumstantial evidence and no one had seen that appellant had committed murder of complainant's brother.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the entire prosecution story as alleged is false and fabricated, even though so called eye witness-Himanshu, who is son of the deceased, who had last seen the appellant coming into the house of the deceased, had not seen the appellant committing the murder. The other witnesses, namely, Smt. Rooprani, who is sister-in-law of the deceased and Ram Prakash, who is brother of the deceased, had also not seen the appellant committing the alleged crime. Thus, there evidence is not believable.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that in the postmortem report of the deceased total seven ante mortem injuries were found on the person of the deceased and cause of death was found to be asphyxia as a result of ante mortem strangulation.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that there is no role of appellant in the alleged crime, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail by this Court sympathetically and the present appeal may be allowed.

9. Shri Ashok Srivastava, the learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the appellant is involved in a heinous crime. He had committed the murder along with the wife of the deceased as there were illicit relations between them. This fact has been stated by so many eye witnesses of the village, even though complainant has also stated in the F.I.R. as well as in his statement that appellant was used to come regularly to the house of the deceased and there were illicit relations between the appellant and the wife of the deceased. The other witness, Smt. Rooprani in her statement has also stated that at about 2:00 a.m. in the night when she woke up to ease herself then she had seen the appellant going outside from the house of the deceased on the date of incident. The son of the deceased, namely, Himanshu was present in the house and had also seen the appellant coming in the house of the deceased when his father was murdered by the appellant with the conspiracy of his mother.

10. Learned A.G.A. further submits that son of the deceased, namely, Himanshu, in his statement before the trial court has stated that appellant was used to come his house regularly and on the date of incident when he saw the appellant in his house, he told his father, then his father started searching of appellant with the help of torchlight of mobile, but his mother had hidden the appellant, when his father could not found the appellant then he went to sleep and his father also went to sleep. The appellant with the conspiracy of wife of the deceased committed his murder by pressing his neck.

11. Learned A.G.A. further submitted that in the postmortem of the deceased seven injuries were found, which are being reproduced as under:

(i) Abrasion over right side neck 1.0 cm x 1.0 cm, 5.0 cm below right ear.

(ii) Abrasion over right side neck 1.5 cm x 1.0 cm and 2.0 cm below injury no. 1.

(iii) Abrasion over right side neck 2 cm x 1.0 cm and 3.5 cm below injury no. 2.

(iv) Abrasion over right side neck 1.0 cm x 1.0 cm and 5.5 cm below left ear.

(v) Abrasion over right side neck 2.0 cm x 1.0 cm and 5.5 cm below left ear.

(vi) Abrasion over right side neck 1.0 cm x 1.0 cm and 2.0 cm below injury no. 5.

(vii) Burn injury 3.0 cm x 2.0 cm over left side posteriorly mid thigh 10.0 cm above left knee.

(viii) Burn injury 2.0 cm x 1.0 cm over left lower leg 16.0 cm above left ankle.

12. Learned A.G.A. further submitted that as per postmortem report of the deceased his cause of death is asphyxia as a result of strangulation, and to give colour that he died due to electric shock the electric wire was planted mechanically at the place of incident, whereas the deceased was died due to strangulation.

13. I have heard the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

14. Considering the rival submissions of the parties, the nature of allegations made in the F.I.R., the nature and gravity of the offence, the complicity of accused-appellant including nature of injuries of the deceased and manner of murder and further considering the statement of Smt. Rooprani recorded before the court below on 14.06.2022 that in the night of incident when she woke up to go to wash room she had seen the appellant in the house of the deceased, which fact has also been confirmed by the son of the deceased, thus, this witness is the last seen witness, moreover, the statement of the son of the deceased was recorded before the court below on 06.07.2022 in which he has also stated that he knows the appellant very well, he used to come to his house regularly, on the date of incident he had seen the appellant in the house, when this fact came into knowledge of the deceased, he started searching but his mother had hidden him somewhere in the house and on the same night his father was murdered, thus, son of the deceased is also last seen witness, who had seen the appellant in the house, therefore, chain of circumstance is complete and is connecting the appellant in commission of murder of the deceased in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharshtra : 1984 Cri. L.J. 178. Thus, it cannot be said that it is a case of circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has completed the chain of evidence indicating involvement of appellant in the crime. Therefore appellant's involvement is very much connected in the murder of the deceased. I find no good ground to enlarge the applicant on bail.

15. In view of the above, the bail application of the applicant is rejected.

16. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed.

17. However, trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case, within a period of one year from today.

18. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the prayer for bail and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merit of the case.

19. Let a copy of this order be sent to the court below for necessary compliance.

Order Date :- 25.7.2023

Mustaqeem