- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.
(2.) Perused the record.
(3.) Submission of the counsel for the applicant is that the incident took place on 13.12.2015 and the N.C.R. with regard to" the incident" was lodged on next day" i.e. on 14.12.2015 at 2.10 p.m. by the grand-father of the deceased. Further submission is that in this N.C.R. which was the first information in point of time about the occurrence, the version given by the grand-father of the deceased was to the effect that on the preceding day i.e. 13.12.2015 the deceased who was a child had picked up some sqabble with somebody and it appeared that some body has given him a thrashing as a result of which he was referred to Banaras Hindu University Varanasi. It was further pointed out by the counsel that the deceased had died on 14.12.2015 at 6.00 p.m. in the Hospital. The inquest proceeding of the deceased was also performed on 15.12.2015. It has been emphasized by the counsel that in the inquest proceeding the father of the deceased was himself one of the witnesses of inquest. Counsel has drawn the attention of the court to the inquest proceeding which has been annexed as annexure 3 to the application showing that during the inquest of deceased when the opinion of the inquest witnesses was procured then it was expressed by the inquest witnesses that the deceased was playing in a grove on 13.12.2015 and an 'unknown person' took him to field and probably killed him with the motive of committing sodomy. Further submission is that though till the inquest was prepared the name of any accused did not surface but when the father of the deceased namely, Panchu Yadav was examined on 17.12.2015 he disclosed the name of the applicant as the culprit and gave the statement to the I.O. that while the deceased was being carried to the hospital, he had disclosed to him the fact that while he was flying a kite the applicant caught hold of him and dragged him to Arahar field and wanted to sodomize him and when he resisted the applicant tried to strangulate him and made assault upon him and snatched away the chain which he was bearing and threw it in the field. Submission is that had there been any truth in this assertion of the father of the deceased that he had been told the name of the culprit and the other details of entire murderous assault made upon the deceased by the applicant, then there is no earthly explanation as to why and under what circumstances the aforesaid fact could remain undisclosed earlier. Contention is that it is unthinkable that even though the N.C.R. of the case would be lodged by none else than the grand-father of the deceased and yet he would neither know as to who was the assailant nor would he disclose the identity of applicant therein. It is also wholly inexplicable as to how and why the assailant was disclosed as an 'unknown person' specifically even at the stage of inquest proceeding during the course of which the father of the deceased himself was present and was also a signatory of the same as witness. Submission is that it is so manifestly demonstrable that this subsequent introduction implicating the applicant is nothing but the brain child of the I.O. who some how in order to work out the case has falsely implicated the applicant in the case. Further submission is that apart from the claim of the father of the deceased of having heard the oral dying declaration of the deceased implicating the applicant, there is absolutely no evidence to connect the applicant with crime. Even the chain belonging to the deceased has been recovered by the police on its own and not at the instance of the accused. Further submission is that in the aforesaid circumstances the falsity of the allegation made against the applicant is apparent on the face of record. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 18.12.2015 and in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.;