High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4861 of 2021 Appellant :- Raghavendra Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Kuldeep Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Purushottam Dixit Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Shri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Kuldeep Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Rabindra Kumar Singh learned Additional Government Advocate assisted by Shri Prashant Kumar Singh learned Brief holder for the State of U.P. and Shri Purushottam Dixit, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 23.7.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Etawah in Bail Application No. 1344 of 2021 arising out of Case Crime No. 88 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 307, 302 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act, Police Station Saifai, District Etawah. In short compass, the facts of the case as unfolded by the prosecution are that the complainant Vijaypal, who is brother of deceased Indrapal, has lodged an F.I.R. on 17.5.2021 at 3:08 o'clock with regard to an incident that took place on 16.5.2021 at 20:30 o'clock against two accused persons, namely, Raghavendra (appellant) and Murari Lal alleging inter-alia that due to election rivalry between the parties concerned and as they have not casted their votes to the appellant, the accused persons came to his village, abused them by racist words and also shot his brother. Thereafter, the injured Indrapal Katheriya was taken to Saifai PGI on 17.5.2021 and after his treatment, he was discharged on 21.6.2021. On 22.6.2021 at about 9:15 o'clock, he succumbed to firearm injury received in the said incident. The information about his death was given by the complainant to the police. Inquest proceeding was conducted on 23.6.2021 at 2:0 o'clock. Thereafter post-mortem of the cadaver was done on 23.6.2021 at 4:00 PM. It is submitted by Shri V.P.Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate that the alleged incident took place on 16.5.2021 at 20:30 hours but F.I.R. was lodged on 17.5.2021 at 3:08 o'clock. The injured (now deceased) was medically examined on 17.5.2021 in Uttar Pradesh University of Medical Sciences, Saifai, Etawah in which one injury was found on his body. The deceased was discharged on 21.6.2021 and died on 22.6.2021 after one month of the incident due to septicemia as his liver, spleen, kidney including the lungs were congested and pus was present. It is next submitted that in the F.I.R. dated 17.5.2021, Ram Pratap, Nem Singh, Rajiv Kumar and Shiv Raj are mentioned as eye witnesses of the incident but subsequently they have been made accused in the statement dated 17.5.2021 of complainant- Vijaypal under Section 161 Cr.P.C., because they have refused to support the prosecution case and in this regard, Ram Pratap, Nem Singh, Rajiv Kumar and Shiv Raj have given their afÏdavits on 31.5.2021 to the Superintendent of police. Much emphasis has been given by contending that at the initial stage, prosecution has come up with a stand that there were two shooters namely Raghavendra (appellant) and Murari Lal but later on, the said story has been changed and it is alleged that injured Indrapal Katheriya gets shot by the appellant-Raghvendra. It is also submitted that appellant has been falsely implicated because it is a case of single shot. Incident took place in night and informant was not eye witness of the incident. The other persons namely Lalu Prasad and Avnish on whose statement prosecution case is based are also not eye witnesses of the incident as their name have not been mentioned in the F.I.R. as an eye witnesses. The appellant has no criminal history. Lastly it is submitted that the appellant is languishing in jail since 28.5.2021 and in case he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. Per contra, learned A.G.A. assisted by his brief holder as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first informant submitted that the appellant is the main accused/shooter in this case. The statement of deceased-Indrapal Katheriya prior to his death was recorded on 6.6.2021 in question-answer form, in which he has clearly stated that at the time of incident Murari Lal along with his associates namely Ram Pratap, Nem Singh, Shivraj Singh, Rajeev Kumar and Raghvendra (appellant) came to his house and started firing and pelting stone on account of non casting of vote in favour of Raghvendra in the election of Pradhan. He further stated that Murari Lal fired at him but his fire did not hit him. Thereafter on the exhortation of Murari Lal, his son Raghvendra fired a shot at him which hit him. It is also submitted that during investigation, the Investigating OfÏcer has recorded the statement of informant and other eye witnesses namely Lalu Prasad, Avnish, Navin Kumar and Rajveer Singh who have supported the prosecution case and also assigned the role of causing firearm injury to the deceased against the present appellant Raghavendra, who is Pradhan of the village. Other witnesses namely Smt. Shakuntala Devi, Smt. Poonum, Shubhash Chand, Brij-Mohan, Shivam have also supported the prosecution case alleging inter-alia that indiscriminate firing was done by the accused persons on account of non casting of vote in favour of the appellant and they all specifically stated that Raghvendra fired at the deceased which hit him. So far as argument on behalf of appellant that in the F.I.R. co-accused Ram Pratap, Nem Singh, Rajiv Kumar and Shiv Raj are mentioned as eye witnesses of the incident is concerned it submitted that the said argument is misconceived as they have not been shown as an eye witness in the F.I.R. It is submitted that beating has already been going on since before firing by the appellant, in which deceased received other injuries also. It is also pointed out that one metallic foreign body was also recovered from the body of the deceased and as per postmortem report six injuries have been found on the body of the deceased which is corroborated with the prosecution case are as under:- 1.Surgical wound of size = 17x5 cm present over mid line of abdominal level of umbilicus. 2.Surgical would of size = 2x1 cm present over right side of abdomen. 2Cm from injury 1 and intestine coming out. 3.Surgical wound of size = 21x10 cm present over left lateral aspect of chest and abdomen and skin missing and pus present. 4.Surgical would of size = 27x7 cm present over left pelvic and thigh of anterior aspect and skin missing and pus present. 5.Surgical would of size = 5x4 cm present over left buttock lateral side and pus present. 6.Healed scarp of size = 3x2 cm present over right temporal region. Learned A.G.A. further submits that deceased died due to firearm injury received to him in the incident dated 16.5.2021. Lastly it is submitted that considering the role of the appellant in the case, the instant appeal is liable to be dismissed. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that there is strong motive against the appellant and the specific role of shooting the deceased has been assigned to the present appellant Raghavendra by the injured (now deceased) himself during his treatment. Other witnesses whose statement has been recorded by the investigating ofÏcer as mentioned above have also supported the prosecution case. There is no material on record to disbelieve the statement of injured / deceased at this stage. It is well settled that the statement of injured eye witness has grate evidentiary value and cannot be discarded lightly unless compelling reasons exist. There is no material on record to presume the false implication of the appellant. F.I.R. has been lodged after getting the injured (now deceased), admitted in the hospital, therefore there is plausible explanation of delay in lodging F.I.R. As per autopsy report deceased died from septicemia due to antemortem injury. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any good ground to enlarge the appellant on bail. Accordingly, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 23.7.2021. Hence the appeal is dismissed. Order Date :- 5.4.2022 Saurabh Digitally signed by SAURABH KUMAR Date: 2022.04.11 15:54:18 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad