RAGHUNANDAN Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-2018-7-210
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on July 09,2018

RAGHUNANDAN Appellant
VERSUS
State of U.P. and 4 Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

KRISHNA PRATAP SINGH,J. - (1.) Raghunandan son of Sadhu Yadav is before us with the following prayers: "(I) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to investigate the Case Crime No. 0086 of 2018 under Sections 302 of IPC Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Banda by independent investigating agency as C.B.C.I.D. Or C.B.I. in accordance with law. (ii) Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. (iii) Award the cost to the petitioner."
(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to the present petition are that petitioner is the informant of Case Crime No. 0086 of 2018 under Section 302 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Banda, wherein real brother of petitioner Mahadeo aged about 40 years, his wife Chunni, aged about 35 years, his Sons Pawan Kumar minor aged about 10 years and Raj Kumar aged about 8 years have been done to death at 5.30 hours on 31.01.2018 inside their house by accused Golu, for which an F.I.R. has been lodged on 31.01.2018 at 10.50 hours and in the said F.I.R. only accused Golu was named.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that free, fair and transparent investigation has at all been carried out by the Investigating Officer because the family members of the Bhawanideen @ Devi Deen, who is father of the respondent No. 5 Ramjas was in the high post of Police Department. It was further submitted that eye witness Awadh Naresh son of deceased Mahadeo, who was fortunately left unharmed after the incident as he was sleeping in an another room with his brother had also witnessed the occurrence but his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded by the Investigating Officer for reasons best known to him. It was also submitted that statement of an other eye witness Ranshi, who is the daughter of the deceased Mahadeo was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer but her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. It was further submitted that eye witnesses of this incident namely Awadh Naresh and Ranshi disclosed that there were many persons involved in the killing of her father, mother and brothers and they had identified Bhawani Deen @ Devi Deen, Golu, Anil @ Raja son of Sharda and Ramjas son of Bhawani Deeen @ Devi Deen, but the investigating officer did include the said assailants in the interrogation. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that against this backdrop petitioner has been requesting the authorities concerned for C.B.I. or C.B.C.I.D. investigation but without any success, which has impelled the petitioner to come before this Court with the prayer quoted above.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.