- (1.) Heard Sri Dheeraj Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants Babu Singh, Sri Niwas and Sundar Singh and Sri G.S. Hajela, Sri Amit Daga, Sri Somveer, learned counsel for the appellants Suraj Pal, Bhoori Singh, Rakesh, Rajpal and Rai Singh and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.
(2.) The appellants Babu Singh and Sri Niwas preferred the Criminal Appeal No. 3977 of 2013, the appellants Suraj Pal, Bhoori Singh, Rakesh, Rajpal and Rai Singh have preferred the Criminal appeal No. 4008 of 2013 and the appellant Sundar Singh has preferred the Criminal Appeal No. 4041 of 2013 against the judgment and order dated 20.8.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 5 Agra in S.T. No. 64 of 2005 connected with S.T. No. 65 of 2005, 66 of 2005 and 67 of 2005 whereby the appellants have been convicted and maximum sentence of life imprisonment has been awarded under section 302/149 IPC. All the appellants have moved their bail applications in their respective appeals, therefore, all the three bail applications are being disposed of by a common order.
(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and from the perusal of the impugned judgment it appears that the FIR of this case has been lodged by Durg Pal on 26.7.2004 at 9.30 A.M. in respect of the incident allegedly occurred at about 7.00 A.M. alleging therein that the first informant has taken the field of one Vijay Singh on lease at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- in which Baajra crop was sown, to which Suraj Pal, the husband of the village Pradhan did not want to be given to the first informant on lease, due to this reason Suraj Pal with the help of his associates, the field in which Baajra was shown was ploughed. On 24.07.2004 its complaint was made to the police station. On 26.07.2004 Shanker Singh, the nephew of the first informant and his son Shiv Nandan had gone to attend the call of nature at their field and after attending the call of nature, they have gone to the tube well of Laturi Singh and take the water. From Baajra field of Laturi Singh, the appellant Suraj Pal armed with Pachfaira, the appellants Bhoori Singh and Rakesh armed with DBBL and SBBL gun, the appellant Sundar Singh armed with DBBL and appellant Rajpal armed with country made pistol, the appellant Rai Singh armed with DBBL, the appellant Babu Singh armed with SBBL gun and the appellant Sri Niwas armed with DBBL gun came out and made the firing indiscriminately towards the nephew and son of the first informant, consequently the nephew of the first informant sustained gun shot injury on his back, after sustaining the gun shot injury he died instantaneously. The son of the first informant namely Shiv Nandan sustained a pallet injury on the left hand. On firing the first informant and the witnesses Mahendra Pal, Ram Dayal, Brij Nandan, Ram Ratan, Raj Bahadur came at the place of the incident and dead body of the deceased Shanker Singh was taken to the road from the place of the incident, in the meantime the police also came at the place of the incident and injured was taken to the police station. According to the post mortem examination report the deceased Shanker Singh had sustained a fire arm wound of entry on the back, the injury was having the blackening. The injured had sustained a lacerated wound on the left wrist. In support of the prosecution version eleven witnesses have been examined in which P.W. 1 Durg Pal, P.W. 2 Ram Ratan and P.W. 3 Shiv Nandan (injured) have been examined as witnesses of fact. According to the deposition of the P.W. 1, all the appellants discharged the shot causing the injuries to the deceased and injured. According to the deposition of P.W. 2 Ram Ratan also all the appellants discharged the shots but the shot discharged by the appellant Suraj Pal hit the deceased Shanker Singh and the shot discharged by Sundar Singh on the hand of the injured Shiv Nandan and according to the deposition of P.W. 3 Shiv Nandan, all the appellants discharged their shots by their fire arms but the shot discharged by the appellant Suraj Pal hit the deceased and the shot discharged by appellant Sundar Singh hit on his left wrist joint. According to the deposition of P.W. 2 and 3 the shot discharged by appellant Suraj Pal hit the deceased and the deceased had sustained a gun shot wound of entry. In such circumstances, the appellant Suraj Pal is not entitled for bail, his prayer for bail is refused.;