The Allahabad High Court has rejected the bail applications of accused Kapil Muni Karwariya, Uday Bhan Karwariya, Surya Bhan Karwariya and Ramchandra Tripathi @ Kallu in the former MLA Jawahar Yadav @ Panditji in the murder case.
The Division Bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal passed this order while hearing a Criminal Appeal filed by Ramchandra Tripathi @ Kallu and others.
As per the prosecution case an F.I.R was registered on 13.8.1996 at 20:45 P.M on the basis of tehrir submission by Sulaki Yadav.
As per the contents of above F.I.R, brother of the first informant, namely, Jawahar Yadav @ Panditji, ex-MLA (deceased) left his office for his house in Maruti car with Gulab Yadav driving, Panditji sitting on the adjacent seat and Kallan Yadav sitting on the back seat. The first informant followed in his Tata Sumo, driven by Lochan Yadav, with Abhimanyu also sitting with him. When the Maruti car of his brother crossed Palace Cinema at 7:00 P.M, a jeep ahead of it slowed down.
Another Maruti Van, then overtook and came to the side of Panditji’s car. The driver Gulab Yadav tried to drive away after hearing an exhortation, but the jeep, in which Ram Chandra @ Kallu Tripathi was sitting, stopped suddenly ahead of the Maruti car of Panditji, causing it to collide with the jeep. Ram Chandra @ Kallu Tripathi, having a rifle, got down from the jeep with some other persons and then Kapil Muni Karwariya, Uday Bhan Karwariya, Surya Bhan Karwariya and their grandfather Maula also came out from the Maruti van, having rifle, AK-47 and other weapons with them. Maula and Ram Chandra exhorted them “maro sale ko aaj bach kar jane na pave” and, thereafter, all the persons indiscriminately fired upon Maruti car of Panditji in which first informant’s brother Jawahar Yadav @ Panditji, driver Gulab Yadav and Kallan received several bullet injuries and another unknown person also received gun shot injury.
It was further stated by the first informant that they also stopped their car and started raising alarm whereupon the accused persons including appellants ran away. Because of fear shopkeepers closed their shops by shutting down shutters and there was eerie silence. After reaching near the Maruti car of Panditji, the first informant found that his brother (Panditji) and Gulab Yadav (driver) had died in the car while the dead body of another person was lying on the road and Kallan Yadav had also received several injuries.
Apart from them, the incident was also seen by one Rajendra Kumar s/o Shyam Lal and several other persons. Kapil Muni Karwariya and his brothers had created so much terror that nobody could dare to say anything against them and these persons had tried to kill his brother earlier also. The first informant and others brought Kallan Yadav to hospital. That incident was seen by the first informant and others in the light of mercury and tube light. After bringing his brother to Swaroop Rani Hospital, the first informant went to lodge the FIR. The Police after conducting investigation, submitted a charge sheet against the appellants u/s 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 34 IPC and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act.
The Sessions Judge, after considering 18 prosecution witnesses as well as 156 defence witnesses and on perusal of record, convicted all the appellants by judgement and order dated 4.11.2019, u/s 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 34 I.P.C and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act.
Counsel for the appellants submitted that the Sessions Judge, while passing the conviction order, has failed to consider the serious inconsistency in the statements of prosecution witnesses and the prosecution failed to prove its case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.
After hearing counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, the Court found that so far the argument of the counsel for the appellants that F.I.R was lodged ante-timed is not correct because, from the statement of witnesses, it is clear that he has clearly stated that he had handed over the tehrir for the incident at 8:30 P.M to Darogaji and the Police after registering the F.I.R handed him over a copy of chick at 9:00 P.M Similarly, the statements of witnesses do not support the aforesaid contention of the appellants.
The Court observed that,
Even the fax message, in the statement of witnesses which appears to have been sent on 13.8.1996, cannot be relied upon as evidence in absence of original copy thereof and presence of original copy of the fax message was clearly denied, even by witnesses who were policemen posted in the office of S.S.P, therefore, the existence of fax message is itself doubtful. Therefore, the statement of witnesses will not help the appellants as the same is contrary to the evidence on record.
So far as the contention of appellants that the second statement of first informant was recorded after much delay is concerned, the same will not help them because first statement of witnesses was immediately recorded during the investigation and delay in recording the second statement of witnesses was properly explained by the Investigating Officer himself in his statement before the court below.
The contention of appellants that the Springfield rifle, recovered from the Maruti car of Panditji was not sent for forensic examination and the same was claimed by its owner Sudhar Singh after one month is not relevant to the case, therefore, it does not affect the prosecution story.
Next contention of the appellants that witnesses, being relatives of deceased Jawahar Yadav @ Panditji are not reliable being interested witnesses is also unfounded because both of them are eyewitnesses of the incident and being relatives of the deceased Panditji are only interested in the punishment of real culprits, therefore, their testimony cannot be thrown out on the ground that they were relatives of deceased Jawahar Yadav.
Next contention of the appellants that the plea of alibi was not considered though they have produced defence witnesses in support thereof is also unfounded because once the incident is proved by the eyewitnesses and the defence could not impeach the credibility of the eyewitnesses during cross-examination, therefore, the plea of alibi cannot be accepted.
Last contention of the appellants that they are in jail for more than eight years and suffering from various diseases are entitled to be released on bail in view of the judgement of Kushal Singh Vs State of U.P (supra), cannot be accepted because in the case, paper book is ready and the matters are ripe for hearing but the appellants refused to argue the appeals on merit and proceeded to argue only bail applications, therefore, above judgement also does not help the appellants and so far as the contention of the appellants regarding suffering from several diseases is concerned that cannot be the sole ground to release the appellants on bail.
“In view of the above, considering the gravity of offence and evidence on record, we do not find this case fit for bail”, the Court further observed while rejecting the bail applications.
“As the appellant Uday Bhan Karwariya in Criminal Appeal is on short-term bail for his treatment in pursuance of the order of the Court dated 12.4.2022 which was extended from time to time, this Court declines to extend the short term bail of the aforesaid appellant i.e Uday Bhan Karwariya and directs him to immediately report back to jail authorities on 12.5.2023.
Even though the appellants are convicted, even then they have the right to proper treatment, therefore, it is further directed that the jail authorities shall ensure the treatment of appellants as per the jail manual and if required they may be sent to a super speciality hospital for treatment under custody”, the order reads.