S.K.Jain - (1.) COUNTER-affidavit filed be taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant Sri Ashfaq Ahmad Ansari, learned A.G.A. Sh. J. P. Singh for the State and perused the record.
(2.) AS per the report lodged by Janardan Singh at P.S. Aurayi, district Sant Ravidas Nagar (Bhadohi) on 22.3.2009 at 8.10 a.m., the complainant, an ex-service man was posted as security officer in E Hill Company, Khamhariya in between the night of 21/22.3.2009 at about 3.46 a.m. was telephonically informed by another security officer Neeraj that a person was trying to commit murder of Nisha Singh in her room. The complainant came out of his house where Neeraj and P. Baral met him. He alongwith Neeraj and P. Baral came to the house of Nisha Singh where he found several other officers, who were calling Nisha Singh and asking her to open the door, but the door did not open. The door was broken and Nisha Singh was found lying dead. The blood had scattered all around. The torch and whistle of the applicant were found in the room. On the same day, the statements of the complainant and other witnesses were recorded. The witnesses also stated that they had seen the applicant coming out from the kitchen and running away from the place of occurrence. The applicant was arrested on 23.3.2009. He confessed his guilt before the police and giving the details of the occurrence he had also stated that during scuffle with Nisha Singh, she suffered bruises on her hand. She gave a bite to the applicant on his left hand index finger. The applicant was medically examined and as per his medical examination report, which is annexed as Annexure-2 to the bail application, lacerated infected wound about two days old was found on his left index finger. During trial, complainant and P. Baral have been examined, who supported the prosecution story and the applicant refused to cross-examine them.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant has submitted that this fact is not mentioned in the F.I.R. that the complainant or any of the witnesses saw the applicant running away from the place of occurrence or coming out of the kitchen and the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant and learned A.G.A. submitted that the F.I.R. is not to be the encyclopaedia giving all minute details of the occurrence. The complainant and the witnesses were examined on the date soon after lodging the F.I.R. and all the witnesses have stated in their statement given under Section 161, Cr. P.C. that they had seen the applicant coming out of the kitchen and running away from the place of occurrence.;