AMAR SARAN, J. - (1.) WE have heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned AGA for the State, learned counsel for the complainant and perused the impugned judgment and trial court's record.
(2.) SINCE both the aforementioned criminal appeals arise out of a common judgment and order, the prayer for bail in both the appeals is being heard and disposed of by a common order. Sri P.N. Mishra, Senior Advocate, learned counsel for the appellants Suresh and Babloo S/o Mom Raj submitted that these two appellants were not arrested on spot but are alleged to have fled away from the scene of crime in a car alongwith co-accused Lokesh, Arif and Kamal but co-accused Lokesh, Arif and Kamal were acquitted by the trial court and these two appellants were convicted under Section 120B IPC. It was contended that there was no evidence to show the involvement of Suresh and Babloo S/o Mom Raj in the murder of Jai Prakash Goel, father of P.W.-7. It was argued that the motive alleged by the prosecution is that these two appellants have taken a sum of Rs. 2.5 lacs from the deceased on the pretext of providing him land but neither land was transferred to the deceased nor the money was returned and that the deceased had gone to Sikandrabad to meet Suresh and Babloo S/o Mom Raj. It was contended that initially, the written report Ext. Ka-18 submitted by the son of the deceased to the police after receiving the information of murder of his father, did not mention that the deceased had gone to Sikandrabad to meet these two appellants nor there was any mention therein that the deceased had given any money to these two appellants. It was further argued that the independent witnesses cited in the FIR lodged at the instance of a Senior Police Officer, there was no mention of five persons including these two appellants running away from the scene of crime in a Santro car. It has not been shown by the prosecution as to how the police witnesses came to know the names of these two appellants.
(3.) SRI Dilip Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant Arun @ Vinne submitted that Arun @ Vinne is alleged to have been arrested on the spot and a countrymade pistol 315 bore and four live cartridges were recovered from his possession. It was contended that the bullets found inside the dead-body were not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for verification that these bullets were fired from the pistol recovered from appellant Arun @ Vinne. It was submitted that Arun @ Vinne had no enmity with the deceased and had no reason to commit his murder. It was further submitted that no independent eye witness of the incident has been examined by the prosecution and all the police witnesses examined during the trial were not eye witnesses of the crime and had reached at the place of occurrence after the incident.;