Court No. - 25 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 137 of 2010 Petitioner :- Sant Bux Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- H.S. Tiwari Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate AND Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 102 of 2010 Petitioner :- Paras Nath Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- Jai Pal Singh Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate AND Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 745 of 2010 Petitioner :- Bhai Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Petitioner Counsel :- Jai Pal Singh Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Abdul Mateen,J.
Hon’ble Yogendra Kumar Sangal,J.
These three appeals have been preferred by the convicts of Session Trial No.
178 of 1998 where by convicting the appellants with respect to the
commission of the offence said to have been committed by them under
section 302/149/201 IPC as well as sections 147 and 364 IPC for maximum
period of life imprisonment with fine stipulation.
As it comes out from the prosecution story that an FIR was lodged by Puttu
Lal alleging there in that his son Vimal Kishore was called from his house
by one Bhai Lal and he was asked whether he had committed theft with
respect to weights and on denial of the same, said Vimal Kishore was dealt
with lathis by appellants Paras Nath Singh and Sant Bux Singh. Thereupon to
settle the matter, the said Vimal Kishore was taken away from his house and
he was later on thrown in a canal in village Madarpur
Argument advanced by learned counsel for appellants is to the effect that the
name of Sant Bux Singh had only emerged initially at the time of lodging of
the FIR by Puttu Lal, father of the deceased on 9.8.1996 with respect to an
incident of 7.8.1996 and later on not in the examination of witnesses before
the court. None of the witnesses had deposed any action on the part of Sant
Bux Singh either with respect of throwing away the said Vimal Kishore in
canal or in taking away the said Vimal Kishore from his house. It has been
argued by the learned counsel for appellants Bhai Lal and Paras Nath Singh
that the main witness Babu Lal who has been shown in the FIR as a witness of
occurrence was produced as P.W.-1 but he has turned hostile . Thus it cannot
be said that there was any independent witness who has been examined to
prove the prosecution case.It has also been argued that one Kishore Kumar
P.W.-2 who is brother of the deceased has also not supported the prosecution
case in its entirety, thus conviction is based upon no evidence.
Prima facie, at this juncture, we find that so far Sant Bux Singh appellant is
concerned, apart from his name which had emerged at the initial stage of
lodging the FIR, there is no evidence with respect to commission of crime in
any manner against him either of taking away the said Vimal Kishore or
throwing him in the canal .As it comes out that role with respect to throwing
the victim in the canal has been assigned to Mahipal, Rajan Pandit and
Bajrangi accused who died during the course of trial Thus there remains
only three appellants, out of which Bhai Lal appellant is the person who
called Vimal Kishore from his house and Paras Nath Singh dealt him with
lathi blows on his body and Sant Bux Singh has not been assigned any role
during the course of statements recorded in the trial court by the witnesses.
Taking into consideration the arguments advanced and without entering into
merit of the case, we hereby find that Bhai Lal and Paras Nath Singh
appellants do not deserve to be released on bail. Their prayer for bail is here
by refused.
So far appellant Sant Bux Singh is concerned, we direct that he be released
on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned. Half of the fine shall remain
stayed and half of the fine be deposited by appellant Sant Bux Singh within
one month from the date of his release. Photo copy of bonds of appellant Sant
Bux Singh be transmitted to this court to be preserved in the record of the
appeal.
Order Date :- 21.7.2010
R.P/