The case revolves around an altercation that took place on March 25, 2024, during Holi celebrations at Shiv Green Apartment, Lucknow. The appellant, Amit Bajpai, was accused of attacking and fatally injuring Yash Chauhan, among others, with a knife. The incident escalated from a verbal dispute over vehicle parking, leading to a physical confrontation. Bajpai was subsequently charged under Sections 302, 324, 504, 506, 307 IPC, and Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issues in this case included:
– The applicability of self-defense under Section 97 of the IPC.
– The credibility of conflicting FIRs filed by both parties involved in the altercation.
– The reliability of eyewitness testimonies and their impact on the prosecution’s case.
– The role of the appellant’s prior criminal history in the court’s decision-making process.
Court’s Decision
The Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Shamim Ahmed, granted bail to Amit Bajpai, reversing the earlier decision by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Lucknow, which had denied bail. The court’s decision was influenced by several critical observations:
1. Self-Defense Justification: The court acknowledged that Bajpai acted in self-defense. “The appellant in order to save himself from the sudden attack, used whatever he could find on him at the time, i.e., the small knife in his keychain to protect himself,” the court noted, emphasizing that his actions were not disproportionate to the threat he faced.
2. Conflicting FIRs: The court observed that Bajpai had filed an FIR against the opposite parties two hours before the FIR was filed against him, suggesting a counter-blast scenario. This timing raised doubts about the prosecution’s narrative.
3. Eyewitness Testimonies: The court found inconsistencies in the eyewitness accounts, particularly noting that the statements of Yaar Mohammad and Ratnakar Upadhyay were identical and appeared tutored. Additionally, the time of the incident as reported by these witnesses differed significantly from the time stated in the FIR.
4. Medical Evidence: The court considered the medical reports indicating that Bajpai had sustained multiple serious injuries, supporting his claim of being attacked first.
5. CCTV Footage: The court reviewed CCTV footage showing Bajpai being assaulted by multiple individuals, further substantiating his self-defense claim.
Important Observations
Justice Shamim Ahmed made several noteworthy observations in the judgment:
– “The appellant in the instant case was suddenly attacked with rods and balli by three persons which created a reasonable apprehension of death and grievous hurt in his mind.”
– “There is no evidence that would show mens rea on the part of the appellant, which is a necessary ingredient for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.”
Also Read
Lawyers and Parties
– Bench: Justice Shamim Ahmed
– Appellant: Amit Bajpai
– Respondent: State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Home, Lucknow
– Counsel for Appellant: Nadeem Murtaza, Harsh Vardhan Kediya, Vaibhav Pandey, Wali Nawaz Khan
– Counsel for Respondent: G.A., Arvind Kumar Verma
– Case Number: CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1626 of 2024
