Ss. 302, 324 & 34
Case of Further inquiry S.497(2)
Although the accused was nominated in the crime report which was lodged with promptitude, but the mode and manner of commission of offence mentioned therein was generalized in nature; it did not specify any of the accused persons of causing any injury either to any deceased or injured witnesses–Even the weapons used by the accused was not described in the crime report— Statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded in the same pattern as the crime report—Post-mortem report to the extent of one of the deceased showed that he had no visible injury on his person, and the same observation was recorded against the column of “cause of death”—Other deceased had sustained only one stab wound at the epigastric region, while the injured witnesses sustained minor injuries that too without any specification–Accused had also lodged a counter version for the incident 2s he too claimed to have sustained injuries at the hands of the complainant side—Two of the co-accused persons nominated by the accused were granted pre-arrest bail—Such aspect made present case one of two versions attracting provision of S. 497(2), Cr.P.C.—Even during course of investigation, nothing incriminatory recovered was strengthen the prosecution version.
Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed and accused was granted bail.
Comments