Wed. Apr 21st, 2021

Rahul Dev vs State on 31 May, 2017

1 min read

2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that despite the fact that
the incident took place at around 12.30 AM on the intervening night of 22nd
and 23rd June, 2009 the three alleged eye-witnesses reached the Police
Station and met the investigating officer Inspector Yashpal Singh only at

CRL.A. 229/2015 Page 1 of 15
4.00AM. There is no explanation as to what the alleged eye-witnesses were
doing for three and a half hour. Further there is no departure entry nor has
one been exhibited by Inspector Yashpal Singh showing his departure for the
scene of crime at 4.00AM. Even as per the case of the prosecution after
Inspector Yashpal Singh reached the spot, he called SI Ramesh Dutt only at
5.30 AM and no information in this regard was made prior thereto. Thus the
information to the Police and the arrival of the Police at the spot is shrouded
with mystery. Though the alleged witnesses were having mobile phones,
nobody made a PCR call. Though Nirmal Babbar, landlord of the premises
stated that Rahul, Raj Kumar and Umesh were residing in the flat, however
he did not depose that Prakash @ Pinkoo was also residing in the flat.
Hence presence of Prakash @ Pinkoo who is the maker of the FIR at the spot
is doubtful.

Source: Indian Kanoon

Leave a Reply