- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.
(2.) THE appellants Rajendra, Rakesh, Ramakant, Badri Vishal, Om Prkash and Ravindra Kumar Sharma have preferred the Criminal Appeal No. 2390 of 2010 and the appellant Bal Kishan has preferred the Criminal Appeal No. 2391 of 2010 against the judgement and order dated 28.8.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Sultanpur in S.T. No. 199 of 2001 connected with S.T. No. 386 of 2004 whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under sections 147, 148, 307/149, 302/149 IPC. All the appellants have moved their second bail application in their respective appeals. Therefore, all the bail applications are being disposed of by a common order.
(3.) FROM the perusal of the record it reveals that a cross case has also been registered, from the side of the prosecution one person has lost his life and two persons have sustained injuries, in that case all the accused persons have also been convicted. In cross case one Bharat Ram has lost his life, Rajendra Prasad, Smt. Murti Devi, Rakesh Kumar, Bal Kishan, Ramakant, Bhimba Ram Upadhyay had sustained injuries. According to the FIR of this case the appellants came at the door of the deceased Ashok Kumar on 14.1.2000 at about 9.00 A.M. By that time the deceased Ashok Kumar sweeping his door. The appellant Ravindra Kumar Sharma was hurled the bomb, remaining appellants were armed with sphere. When the first informant came to the place of the incident, at the exhortation of the appellant Rajendra the appellant Bal Kishan fired at the deceased Ashok Kumar by is country made pistol, the deceased Ashok Kumar died on the spot. The first Raj Kumar and his brother Ram Kumar were also beaten by the accused persons, they had sustained injuries caused by sphere and lathi. According to the post mortem examination report the deceased Ashok Kumar had sustained one one injury, it was a punctured incised wound 1x1cmxcavity deep on the chest. According to the deposition of the Dr. Hari Prakash who conducted the post mortem examination report of the dead body the injury to the deceased was caused either by ballam or Bhala, no pellet etc. was found in the body, whereas according to the FIR it was alleged that the appellant Bal Kishan fired a shot by country made pistol towards the deceased. The deceased died on the spot. At the stage of the investigation the witnesses stated that the appellant Bal Kishan fired at the deceased by country made pistol and remaining accused persons wielded ballam blows, after sustaining the injuries the deceased Ashok Kumar fell down, but at the state of the trial it has been deposed by P.W. 1 and 2 that the appellant Rakesh Kumar caused injury to the deceased by using the ballam blow. It has been specified by P.W. 1 and 2 that the appellant Rakesh Kumar caused injury to the deceased by using the ballam blow, the FIR version with regard to causing the injury to the deceased by Ballam has been changed. According to the deposition of P.W. 8 the injury sustained by the deceased was not caused by the fire arm as alleged in FIR. According to the medical examination report of the injured Raj Kumar, he had sustained seven injuries in which injuries No. 2 and 3 caused by the sharp edge weapons, remaining injuries were caused by lathi/ballam. The injured Ram Kumar P.W. 2 had sustained six injuries in which injury No. 3 was caused by sharp edge weapon, remaining injuries were caused by lathi/ballam blows. The injuries No. 1,2 and 3 of the injured Raj Kumar and injury No. 2 of injured Ram Kumar might be dangerous to life. But there was no internal damage. According to the deposition made by the eye witnesses the allegation of causing the injury to the deceased by using the ballam blow is made against the appellant Rakesh whereas according to the FIR the allegation of causing the injury to the deceased by country made pistol was attributed to the appellant Bal Kishan. The deceased had sustained only one incised punctured wound. He had not received any other injury. In such a circumstance, if material improvement has been made by changing the FIR version and by making the allegation that the allegation that the injury has been caused to the deceased by the appellant Rakesh Kumar by using the ballam blow, therefore, the appellant Rakesh Kumar is also entitle for bail.;