Shiv Charan and V.K.Verma, JJ. - (1.) ALL the above Criminal Appeals have been instituted against the judgment and order dated 29.6.2007 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge Court No. 3 Farrukhabad in Sessions Trial No. 346 of 1999 State v. Sone lal and others under sections 147, 148, 149, 307 and 302 IPC P.S. Kampil, District Farrukhabad. Prayer of bail has also been made in the above mentioned appeals on behalf of all the appellants, namely, Sone lal, Jadu Nath, Pappu, Udaiveer, Rahis, Sibban alias Sheo Nandan, Kalloo alias Lalaua, Sri Pal, Santosh, Rajendra, Rajveer, Raju, Mahesh, Libbi and Hari Nandan, hence, the prayer of bail is disposed of by common order.
(2.) WE have heard Sri V.P. Srivastava Senior Advocate, Sri U.C. Mishra, Sri S.K. Dube, Sri Pushpendra Singh Yadav, Sri Sanjai Kumar Tiwari, Sri A. Kumar and Sri V.P. Mishra learned Counsel for the appel lants, learned AGA for the State and Sri Prashant Saxena Advocate for the com plainant and have also perused the Trial Court record as well as other relevant documents. At the outset learned Counsel for the appellants argued that on a careful consideration of the manner in which the incident took place according to the prosecution story, the injuries sustained by the deceased and injured and number of the accused persons involved in the offence only inference can be drawn that the num ber of the accused persons is exaggerated. It is not possible to participate in the com mission of the offence by as many as 15 accused persons and learned Counsel for the appellants tried to make a distinction in the role played by each of the accused per sons in the commission of offence and in this connection it has been argued that Pappu and Sri Pal appellants were armed with rifles and on perusal of the injuries of the deceased as well as of the injured only inference can be drawn that no injury was sustained by the rifles. On the strength of this argument learned Counsel for the ap pellant tried to emphasize that the in volvement of the accused persons is false. It has also been argued regarding Pappu that he was juvenile at the time of the incident. This point was agitated at the time of trial before the Trial Court and at a subsequent stage but prior to judgment. The learned Sessions Judge declined to entertain the submission of the appellant on the ground that this point was not raised at the earliest available opportunity. And in this connec tion learned Counsel for the appellant stated that this point can be raised even at the appellate stage. It has also been argued regarding Sone lal that he was armed with country made pistol but role of exhortation has been assigned to him. However, later on it has also been alleged that all the ac cused persons opened fire from their weapons. And it has also been argued that his involvement is also doubtful. Learned Counsel also argued that 12 accused per sons were armed with gun and country made pistol, one accused was armed with sword and two armed with rifles and it appears highly improbable that there was no dispersal of the pellets of the fire arm. Learned Counsel for the appellant tried to persuade us that when as many as 12 per sons involved and actively participated in the commission of offence but the fire arm injuries sustained by the deceased as well as injured are not in proportion to the weapons used and only inference can be drawn that they have been involved in this case falsely. Learned Counsel for the appel lants raised certain other points which are not necessary to be mentioned for the pur pose of disposing of the matter of bail prayer. This will be considered at the time of final hearing. Further argued that they were on bail during trial and did not mis use the bail. Learned AGA as well as Counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer of bail of the appellants and argued that the incident was committed in a very high handed manner. All the 15 accused persons armed with lethal weapons and caused injuries by their respective weapons. It cannot be inferred at this stage that some of the accused are not involved in the com mission of offence. Motive was available for committing the offence and even a baby of two years of age has not been spared. It has been argued that FIR was prompt. In cident took place on 11.6.1999 at about 6.30 A.M whereas FIR was lodged at the police station the same day at about 7.30 A.M within an hour of the incident. Hence, there was no opportunity available to the com plainant to fabricate a false case against the appellants or to make embellishment by exaggerating the story. That as many as six persons sustained injuries by different weapons and there are numerous injuries on the body of the deceased of fire arm as well as sharp edged weapons. That the Sessions Judge was justified in convicting the appellants.
(3.) WE have considered the facts and circumstances of the case as well as sub missions made by learned Counsel for the appellants, learned AGA for the State and Counsel for the complainant. Numerous points have been raised by learned Counsel for the appellants but it is not possible to give any finding on the points raised on behalf of the appellants and point raised by the learned Counsel for the appellants shall be considered at the time of the final dis posal of the appeal. But seeing the gravity of the offence we are of the opinion that all the appellants except Pappu and Sripal are not entitled for bail. However, we are of the opinion that the case of the accused Pappu and Sri Pal is distinct from rest of the accused per sons. They were armed with rifles but no injury of rifle was sustained by the de ceased and the injured of Rifle. But injuries were caused by other fire arms and sharp edged weapons and without expressing any opinion on the merit regarding these two appellants we are of the opinion that considering the distinct role of these appel lants they are entitled for bail. Let the appellants Pappu and Sri Pal involved in the above sessions Trial be re leased on bail providedly on their furnish ing personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned. Prayer of bail of rest of the appellants named above is declined and rejected.;