RAGHUNANDAN Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Raghunandan son of Sadhu Yadav is before us with the following prayers:

(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present petition are that petitioner is the informant of Case Crime No. 0086 of 2018 under Section 302, IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Banda, wherein real brother of petitioner Mahadeo aged about 40 years, his wife Chunni, aged about 35 years, his Sons Pawan Kumar minor aged about 10 years and Raj Kumar aged about 8 years have been done to death at 5.30 hours on 31.01.2018 inside their house by accused Golu, for which an FIR has been lodged on 31.01.2018 at 10.50 hours and in the said FIR only accused Golu was named.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that free, fair and transparent investigation has not at all been carried out by the Investigating Officer because the family members of the Bhawanideen alias Devi Deen, who is father of the respondent No. 5 Ramjas was in the high post of Police Department. It was further submitted that eye witness Awadh Naresh son of deceased Mahadeo, who was fortunately left unharmed after the incident as he was sleeping in an another room with his brother had also witnessed the occurrence but his statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. was not recorded by the Investigating Officer for reasons best known to him. It was also submitted that statement of an other eye-witness Ranshi, who is the daughter of the deceased Mahadeo was recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer but her statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C. was not recorded. It was further submitted that eye witnesses of this incident namely Awadh Naresh and Ranshi disclosed that there were many persons involved in the killing of her father, mother and brothers and they had identified Bhawani Deen alias Devi Deen, Golu, Anil alias Raja son of Sharda and Ramjas son of Bhawani Deeen alias Devi Deen, but the Investigating Officer did not include the said assailants in the interrogation. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that against this backdrop petitioner has been requesting the authorities concerned for C.B.I. or C.B.C.I.D. investigation but without any success, which has impelled the petitioner to come before this Court with the prayer quoted above.