PREM SHANKER Vs. STATE OF U.P.
LAWS(ALL)-2010-5-181
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on May 20,2010

PREM SHANKER Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF U.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.C.AGARWAL, J. - (1.) SUPPLEMENTARY affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. This bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Prem Shanker, involved in case crime no.176 of 2010 under sections 302, 201 I.P.C. pertaining to police station Baheri, district Bareilly. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is not named in the F.I.R. The dead body of the victim was found on 19.1.2010. After four days, brother of the deceased gave a written report to the police implicating the applicant, who is the son-in-law of the deceased and had no motive to commit murder of his father-in-law.
(2.) IT is a case of circumstantial evidence. Learned A.G.A. submitted that the deceased Parmanand was the resident of Vilaspur, district Rampur and his dead body was found in village Harharpur, P.S. Baheri, district Bareilly on 19.1.2010 at 9:00 a.m. F.I.R. was lodged by Har Prasad of village Harharpur against unknown persons. On postmortem, a ligature mark was found on the neck of the deceased and the neck was also cut with a sharp edged weapon. After four days, on 23.1.2010, Tirkha Ram, brother of the deceased, gave a written report at the police station implicating the applicant and identified the deceased from his photographs and clothes. Learned A.G.A. has relied on the following incriminating circumstances : (i) Applicant is the son-in-law of the deceased. On 19.1.2010, applicant made a call on the cell phone of K.P. Singh, son of the deceased, to send Parmanand to Kaimri Bus Stand and the deceased started for Vilaspur to meet his son-in-law. (ii)At Vilaspur crossing, Tirkha Ram, brother of the deceased, and his cousin Deen Dayal saw the deceased with applicant Prem Shanker going on a motorcycle. (iii)When the deceased did not come back for 2 - 3 days, Tirkha Ram contacted the applicant on his cell phone. In the conversation through cell phone, the applicant confessed to his guilt and admitted having killed the deceased. It was further disclosed by the applicant that the dead body has been thrown by him in spinning mill area. (iv)Thereafter, Tirkha Ram and other family members went to police station Baheri and enquired about the dead body. They were shown the photographs and clothes of the deceased, which were identified by them to be belonging to the deceased. (v)The applicant, prior to the incident, had taken the motorcycle of Sompal, son of the deceased, with him and on that very motorcycle he was seen going with the deceased on 18.1.2010. (vi)In the fist of the dead body, a shirt button was found. (vii)After arrest, at the instance of the applicant, his shirt was recovered by the police, which had two buttons missing and the shirt was found thrown near Kichchha minor river bridge. Knife used in the incident was also recovered from the possession of the applicant.
(3.) LEARNED A.G.A. submitted that chain of circumstances is complete and mother-in-law, brother-in-law and all relatives of the wife of the applicant have given statements against the applicant.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.