Remanded

Hari Om v. State of U.P. and 9 Others

Allahabad HC27 Aug 2018CRLP/20490/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous writ petition, the Court found the investigation into the petitioner's father's murder case to be biased, noting exonerating statements by independent witnesses despite the petitioner being an eyewitness. The Court directed the Director CBCID to conduct a fair investigation and submit a report within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed Director CBCID to investigate the case and submit a police report within eight weeks.

Hari Om Vs State of U.P. and 9 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20490 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Hari Om Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Babu Sharma,Ardhendu Shekhar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A

¶4

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.

¶5

Post-mortem examination report produced by the counsel for the petitioner is taken on record.

¶6

Heard Shri Ram Babu Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Deepak Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State and perused the materials available on record.

¶7

It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the informant of the case and he had lodged an FIR against accused-respondent Nos. 5 to 10 on 10.6.2018 for the offence in question, in which the father of the petitioner was murdered by the said accusedrespondents, who fired at him and as per the postmortem examination report, the cause of death was ante-mortem fire arm injuries.

¶8

The informant is an eye-witness of the occurrence and was accompanying his father along with his uncle, Rameshwar Dayal and one person of his village namely, Santosh.

¶9

It is argued that the police has not conducted fair investigation in the matter and has exonerated the accused named in the FIR by the petitioner, who were six in number and closure report has been submitted on 10.7.2018 with respect to them. He further argued that the investigation, which was carried out by the police, was based on the statement of a Tanga Puller, on which the deceased along with petitioner and his uncle and one Santosh were going. Tanga Puller in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that none of the accused named in the FIR were present. He submitted that the investigation which was biased one should be directed to be

¶10

reinvestigated by any other independent agencies as the petitioner was an eye-witness of the occurrence along with his uncle and there was strong motive for the accused-respondents to commit the murder of his father as the wife of the petitioner is village Pradhan and there is inimical terms between the parties.

¶11

Learned AGA on the other hand has submitted that as per the affidavit filed by Senior Superintendent of Police, Budaun, it is evident that the investigation of the case was first conducted by Shri Munna Lal, Circle Officer, Bisauli, district Budaun, who recorded the statement of the petitioner/complainant on 10.6.2018, and thereafter, the investigation of the case was transferred to one Shri Satendra Kumar Singh, Circle Officer, Dataganj, district Budaun. The said investigating officer again recorded the statement of petitioner/complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C., who has fully supported the prosecution case. So far as the other eye-witness, Santosh Jatav, who was accompanying the deceased and the petitioner though has supported the incident dated 10.6.2018, but he could not identify the assailants.

¶12

On 18.6.2018, the statement of Tanga Puller, namely, Babloo was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and he has specifically stated that near Chitaura Tiraha two people have stopped the Tanga and two unknown people have opened fire on the deceased Sompal and Reeta, on account of gun shot injuries Reeta got injured. It is further stated by him that the persons, who have opened fire were not from the village Kada Gujar and he specifically stated that he was unknown to the assailants and that the accused named in the FIR were not present at the place of incident and he could not identify the said accused persons. On 26.6.2018, the statements of the witnesses, namely, Vijay and Vijendra were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.,who have supported the incident and they have stated that Hari Om and Rameshwar had not sat on Tanga and only Santosh was sitting on Tanga.

¶13

I.G. Bareilly, Range, Bareilly has personally

¶14

inspected the place of occurrence and the I.G. Bareilly has transferred the investigation on 23.6.2018 to Circle Officer, Dataganj to Circle Officer, Ujhani, district Budaun. On 4.7.2018, the Circle Officer, Ujhani has visited the place of incident and he has interrogated the independent eye witnesses and obtained call details report of the accused-respondents and on examining the same, involvement of the six named accused persons were found to be suspected. In the affidavit it has been further stated that in the said incident involvement of Ram Saran son of Sarnam resident of village Koda Guar, police station Alapur, district Budaun and Ravindra son of Ram Singh resident of Village Rukumpur Pukhta, police station Dataganj, district Budaun were revealed in the commission of crime and mobile number of Ram Saran was kept on surveillance. On 9.7.2018, the accused, Ram Saran was arrested and has been sent to jail and his confessional statement was recorded in which he disclosed the name of Ravindra and Rajkumar, who have shot dead the deceased and the injured. On 15.7.2018 the other two accused persons, namely Ravindra son of Ram Singh and Rajkumar, son of Nanku have been sent to jail and it is stated that the investigation has been carried out in a fair manner and the police did not make biased investigation.

¶15

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record that the petitioner has lodged the FIR against the accused-respondent Nos. 5 to 10 and the deceased died out of the ante mortem fire arm injuries. The petitioner along with his uncle are said to be eye-witnesses of the occurrence and petitioner has supported the prosecution case in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which was recorded twice by the investigating agency and there appears to be enmity between the parties as the wife of the petitioner is the Village Pradhan and the accused had some animosity with the petitioner and his family and on account of rivalry in election of Village Pradhani, the incident has taken place in broad day light. Though, the investigation appears to have been conducted by two to three investigating officers under the orders of the I.G.

¶16

Bareilly Range, Bareilly, but the statement which has been relied upon by the Tanga Puller, namely, Babloo for exonerating the respondents does not inspire confidence and the counsel for the petitioner has stated that as the petitioner and his uncle were eye-witness of the occurrence, the investigation which has been done in biased manner exonerating the accused persons by the investigating agency, shows the collusion with the accused, who are also influential persons, hence, the investigation of the case be transferred, has substance.

¶17

In view of the same, we think it proper that the investigation of the case may be carried out by the CBCID. Hence, we direct the Director CBCID to get the investigation done by the CBCID, which shall conclude the investigation within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order and submit a police report before the competent court accordingly.

¶18

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶19

(Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

¶20

Order Date :- 27.8.2018

¶21

Sumaira

Hari Om v. State of U.P. and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Om v. State of U.P. and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh @ Karu and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohit and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Abdul Mateen Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Indra Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P.

Sanni Yadav @ Mritunjay and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Arvind Verma Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others