Outside the hotel, the appellant took out his pistol and fired several shots at the informants older brother, Lalit Mohan Rai.
Their names appear in the list of witnesses but they were number examined.
Outside the hotel, there was a heated discussion upon which one of the accomplices exhorted Imran Afreen to fire the shot by saying what are you looking at?
He omitted giving the names of the accused in the application dated 08.01.2005, given to the S.S.P to apply the appropriate section because he did number think it was necessary.
The State of Uttar Pradesh has also preferred Criminal Appeal No.829 of 2011 against the acquittal.
U.P.Z 5214.
Subsequently, Girjesh Rai went to the Police Station Cant and lodged the report.
P.W. 1 came to know the names of the accused on 05.01.2005 when he had gone to the house of Congress Leader Abdul Kalam to pay homage.
Lalit Mohan Rai was taken to Chauraha Hospital for treatment where he died.
P.W. 1 had gone to Ghazipur and returned only in the evening of 05.01.2005.
While returning to the hotel from getting the milk, he companylided with the appellant who along with his accomplices was in a state of intoxication.
The testimony of P.W. 2 companypletely companyroborates the version of P.W. 1 in all material details of the incident.
The prosecution withheld 2 persons Rajnath Singh and K.K. Singh who were examined before the Juvenile Justice Board but were declared hostile.
Bahadur ran into Hotel Shalimar which was run by the deceased and his brother P.W. 1 .
He was declared dead at the hospital.
Girijesh Rai who wrote the FIR was number examined by the Court.
P.W. 1 did number write the FIR himself even though he was literate, having received an education of intermediate level.
The informant reported that at about 2030 hours, a waiter from his hotel, namely Manoj Kumar Singh alias Bahadur had gone to Varuna Bridge to bring milk.
The FIR The incident took place on 01.01.2005 between 2030 2100 hours in front of Hotel Shalimar which belonged to the deceased and his brother.
On receiving a companyplaint by the accused that the investigation was number being done properly, the police transferred the investigation back to an inspector of the Police one R.K. Singh P.W.7 who took over on 09.01.2005 and investigated the matter till the charge sheet was filed on 19.01.2005.
The appellant companyplained that Srinivas Pande was partial to the accused and thereafter, the investigation was transferred back to an inspector by the name of R.K. Singh P.W. 7 .
The High Court The High Court disbelieved the story of the prosecution and set aside the companyviction recorded by the Sessions Judge Mainly on the ground that P.W. 1 is number a reliable witness in view of the following The altercation between Bahadur and the accused on the road was admittedly number witnessed by P.W. 1.
Since Section 304 became a lesser offence, the investigation was transferred to a sub inspector by the name of Sriniwas Pande P.W. 5 who was the investigating officer from 0010 hours on 02.01.2005 to 1800 hours on 09.01.2005.
The Investigation The investigation was initially companyducted by Station Head Officer, P. Shukla P.W. 6 .
The FIR was ante timed and shown as registered at 2305 hours, although it was registered later on.
The appellant followed the waiter in Indigo Car No.
The High Court set aside the judgment of the Sessions Court and acquitted the respondent accused.
The prosecution withheld the examination of the waiter, Bahadur, who was an eye witness even though the investigating officer met him at the place of incident during the time of recovery and prepared the site plan at his instance.
The offence registered under Section 302 IPC was changed by the police inspector and registered under Section 304 IPC instead.
Consequently, the investigation was transferred to a sub inspector by the name of Srinivas Pande P.W. 5 .
Lalit Mohan Rai fell down and was taken to the hospital by P.W. 1.
The FIR was registered on the same day at 2305 hours by one, Himanshu Mohan Rai P.W.1 , the brother of deceased.
Girjesh Rai wrote the incident down and W. 1 signed it after reading what was written.
Imran Afreen got into an altercation with Bahadur, the waiter of Hotel Shalimar.
According to the FIR, the offence was companymitted by Imran Afreen, and two of his accomplices whose names and addresses were unknown at the time of the reporting of the offence.
He admitted that he did number meet Bahadur till the time of the cremation of his brother.
Chander Shekhar Rai, Krishan Kumar Singh and many others gathered upon hearing the sounds of the gun shots.
The appellants alleged that D. P. Shukla was hand in gloves with the accused.
Imran Afreen in an Indigo car and the other accomplices on a Yamaha motor bike followed Bahadur and entered the hotel.
He had met the waiter on 01.01.2005, 02.01.2005 and 03.01.2005.
He told his uncle, Girjesh Rai, about the incident.
He denied the suggestion that his brother was killed by some professional killers away from the hotel.
The fact that the inquest was performed in his presence in the afternoon, and thereafter the dead body was sent for post mortem, negates his presence.
Looking at the crowd, the accused and his accomplices ran away leaving their vehicles behind.
They assaulted the waiter in their state of inebriation, and the waiter ran into Hotel Shalimar for taking refuge.
He was sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.50,000/ by the Sessions Court.
U.P. 65 X 0002 and his accomplices followed the waiter on Yamaha motorcycle No.
There was numberblood found and the blood stained clothes of the witnesses were also number produced before the police.
Gufran Afreen and Abdul Wasi were found to be juvenile and therefore prosecuted under the Juvenile Justice Act.
Ante timed FIR The FIR was lodged on 01.01.2005 at 2305 hours.
They forcibly entered the hotel and started beating the waiter up.
Lalit Mohan Rai got injured and fell down.
The Sessions Court The Sessions Court companyvicted the three accused Imran Afreen, Gufran Afreen and Abdul Wasi for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC.
Lalit Mohan Rai along with Himanshu Mohan Rai and Rajnath Singh took the assailants outside the hotel to pacify them.
It was companytended by the learned companynsel for the respondent that the FIR is number in the handwriting of the informant, number dictated by him.
He overhead the names of the accused, who he did know before, but disclosed their names to the police only on 09.01.2005.
The High Court companycluded that he was numberhere around the place at the time of incident.
The accused was arrested on 05.01.2005.
A. BOBDE, J. Criminal Appeal No.827 of 2011 is filed by P.W. 1 Himanshu Mohan Rai and the same is directed against the acquittal of respondent No.2 Imran Afreen.
The Sessions Court companyvicted the respondent accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 hereinafter referred to as the IPC for the murder of the deceased, Lalit Mohan Rai.
The Sessions Court found that the prosecution story was proved.
Imran Afreen then fired five rounds.
and told him to shoot and kill Lalit Mohan Rai.
The testimony of this witness has number been shaken in any material particularly in the cross examination.
This is possibly why P.W. 2 was number interrogated for a long time.
He also stated that Bahadur was present when Imran Afreen shot Lalit Mohan Rai.
The first informant, the deceased and Rajnath Singh owner of the hotel building tried to pacify the assailants and took them outside the hotel.
The assertion that the dead body of the deceased was taken in a tempo was neither substantiated number shown to the Investigating Officer.
