- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Sudhanshu Singh, learned counsel for the complainant and learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the record of the case.
(2.) SINCE both the aforementioned criminal appeals have been filed against a judgement and order dated 18.8.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 13, Bareilly in ST No. 280 of 2004 convicting and sentencing the appellants to life imprisonment under sections 302/34, 201 IPC and fine, the prayer for bail in both the appeals is being considered and disposed of by means of this common order. The prosecution case was that on 17.4.2003 at 2.00 P.M. the deceased Sohan Lal was said to have gone away with the co-accused Shishupal. Shishupal was declared juvenile and his trial was conducted under the Juvenile Justice Act. The report of this incident was lodged on 26.4.2003 at 10.30 AM by Smt. Mona Devi, PW 1, wife of the deceased Sohan Lal under section 364 IPC. The deceased was seen consuming liquor and food in the house of appellant Meena in the night of 17.4.2003 in village Tehra by PW 3 Natthi Devi. At that time the two appellants and Shishupal were present. On 27.4.2003 the appellant Sompal was arrested by the police at 8.15 AM. Thereafter, he got the dead body of the deceased recovered from the river bank after digging the ground where the body had been buried. Subsequently, on the same day bloodstained clothes of the deceased were recovered at the instance of the appellant Sompal. Meena surrendered in court on 27.5.2003. On 5.6.2003, a white Anguachha belonging to the deceased was got recovered by Meena. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the doctor, who conducted the post mortem on 27.4.2003 found that the deceased has died five days earlier and, therefore, he could not have been murdered on 17.4.2003. He further submitted that though the appellants confessed to have shot the deceased on his temple, but there was no firearm injury on the head of the deceased. As the body was discovered long after the appellants and the deceased were seen together, from the mere recovery of the body and the clothes of the deceased only an offence under section 201 IPC was disclosed, which would be a bailable offence.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant Meena argued that the Angachha of the deceased had been recovered at the instance of Meena only on 5.6.2003, i.e. 50 days after the alleged incident and no reliance could be placed on mere recovery of Angauchha. Thus, only a shaky evidence of last seen was revealed against Meena. Learned counsel for the complainant and learned AGA argued that Meena had a strong motive for committing this crime as Meena was a woman of loose character, whose husband, the co-accused Vijay Pal (who was exonerated by the police) wanted to leave her and Sohan Lal, the deceased was helping Vijaypal to leave his wife and he was encouraging him to get a Bengali woman in her place. There was also a recovery of Angauchha from the appellant Meena.;