Court No. - 55 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4771 of 2009 Petitioner :- Rajendra Respondent :- State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- D.K. Dewan,V.K. Maheshwari Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Vineet Saran,J.
Hon’ble Vijay Kumar Verma,J.
The appellant Rajendra has been convicted and
sentenced under section 302/34 IPC vide judgement and order
dated 12.06.2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, J. P. Nagar at
Amroha in S.T. No. 467 of 2003 as leading case (consolidated)
with S.T. No. 467A of 2003 and 468 of 2003, P.S. Rajab Pur,
District J. P. Nagar.
Heard Sri D. K. Dewan, learned counsel for the
appellant and learned A.G.A. for the respondent and perused the
record.
The submission made by learned counsel for the
appellant is that the appellant has been wrongly implicated in the
case because of enmity, as the wife of the appellant was
murdered in the year 1999, in which the deceased Roop Singh as
well as the first informant P.W. 1Smt. Munni and P.W. 2 Sanjeev
(another eyewitness) were all convicted and in Appeal, they have
been enlarged on bail. It is noteworthy that the appellant is real
brother of the deceased Roop Singh and also the real brother of
P.W. 1 Smt. Munni and P.W. 2 Sanjeev, between whom long
standing enmity is going on. The learned counsel for the
appellant has further submitted that presence of the first
informant at the place of alleged occurrence is highly doubtful, as
the incident is said to have taken place in the field on the tube-
well, where the first informant Smt. Munni Devi, married sister of
the deceased, could not likely to be present in the night at 3.00
a.m. It is further contended that one of the sons of the appellant
was the informant in the case of the murder of his mother (wife of
the appellant) against the deceased and P.W. 1 and 2 as well as other persons.
It is also submitted that because of the involvement of the deceased
and other relatives in the murder of the wife of the appellant, the appellant has
been falsely implicated in the present case regarding which there is no evidence.
It is further submitted that the statement of the defence witness
produced by the appellant before the trial has not been discussed in the
judgement of the trial court. Only one side of the picture of the case has been
considered.
Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the appellant
was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the bail and there is no criminal
history of the appellant.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and
keeping in view that the appellant as well as the deceased and other prosecution
witnesses are closely related and also the fact that in the other case related to
the murder of the wife of the appellant, the first informant and other relatives,
who were convicted, have already been granted bail in criminal appeal no. 2484
of 2008 and 2482 of 2008 vide order dated 28.01.2009 (the record of which has
been placed before us), in our view, the appellant has made out a prima facie
case of grant of bail.
Let the appellant Rajendra be released on bail in above case till
disposal of the appeal on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties in the
like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned subject to depositing
half of the amount of fine imposed by the Trial Court. The realisation of
remaining amount of fine shall remain stayed during the pendency of the appeal.
08.01.2010
yachna/-