CRLA/428/2021
2023 Latest Caselaw 3141 UK

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                       COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                  IA No. 1 of 2021
                                  With
                                  CRLA No. 428 of 2021
                                  Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Ms. Unnati Panti, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. M.K. Ray, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. V.K. Gemini, Deputy A.G., for the State of Uttarakhand.

The appellant is a convict for commission of the offence under Section 304 of the IPC, whereby, by the judgment dated 26th November, 2021, as rendered in Sessions Trial No. 10 of 2021, State Vs. Anil Kumar, he has been convicted to undergo sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/- has been imposed.

Learned counsel for the appellant presses the Bail Application on the ground, that the prosecution story cannot be believed with, for the reason being, that in accordance with the FIR No. 37 of 2021, initially, the same was registered for commission of offence under Section 302 of the IPC, and the incident, which has been narrated therein, is shown to have chanced at 4 O'clock.

The learned counsel for the appellant contends, that the contents of the FIR, apart from the fact, that it is belied from the evidence on record, as well as the eyewitnesses, i.e. the wife of the deceased. She has recorded a contradictory statement with regard to the date and time, at which, the incident has chanced, because the FIR speaks about that, the incident has chanced at 4 O'clock, but the contradictory statement has been made by the wife of the deceased, who is shown to be the eyewitness that the incident has chanced at 2 O'clock, when she has returned from the jungle after grazing her cattle.

Apart from it, she has also submitted, that if the statement of the doctor and the post mortem report are taken into consideration, the post mortem report shows the presence of alcohol along with contents of undigested food. The consumption of alcohol, was also a fact, which stood corroborated by other evidence on record.

Lastly, she submits that after the judgement of conviction as rendered on 26th November, 2021, the appellant was shown to have been arrested on 1st May, 2021, and was on bail during the trial and, he has never misused the same, and as of now, after the judgment of conviction as rendered on 25th November, 2020, he has already served approximately more than 2-1/2 years of sentence.

Owing to the above, apparently, there happens to be a massive contradiction in the statement of witnesses and the documents have not been appropriately read by the Court below.

Hence, the Bail Application is allowed. The appellant is directed to be released on bail, subject to furnishing of his personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned.

However, the release of the appellant would be subject to the condition of depositing the 50% of the penalty amount as imposed by the impugned judgment.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) Dated 13.10.2023 Shiv