Point of law: When such statement of the eye witness in question has got no evidentiary value in the eyes of law, the implication of the present applicant in such case would not be proper subject to other circumstantial evidence and corroborative material which would be seen during trial.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Rastogi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Rao Narendra Singh, learned AGA for the State.

2. The present applicant is in jail Since 18.6.2021 in Case Crime No. 314 of 2018 u/s 302, 307, 323 IPC, P.S. Gosaiganj, District Lucknow. He has further submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story.

3. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned F.I.R. which is against the four unknown persons who were beating up the husband of the informant mercilessly through sharp edged weapon and batons on 29.5.2018. As per the informant she has seen those persons through the light of torch as the incident is a night occurrence of 9.30 P.M.

4. The police recorded the statement of informant/wife of the deceased on 31.5.2018. Further, the police recorded the statement of eye witness Guddu s/o Guru Prasad u/s 161 Cr.P.C. on 12.1.2019. When the local police could not investigate the matter as no reliable evidences could be collected, matter was transferred to crime branch for further investigation. The crime branch again recorded the statement of eye witness Guddu on 22.5.2020 where he repeated his earlier version recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. The crime branch conducted the Polygraph test of Guddu s/o Guru Prasad on 15.3.2021. During polygraph test the leading question has been asked from Guddu as to whether the present applicant has committed crime in question, he replied in affirmative. As per learned counsel for the applicant the leading question could have not been asked during investigation. However, on the basis of aforesaid statement of eye witness Guddu the police arrested the applicant and send him jail on 18.6.2021 without intimating any reason to the applicant or his family members regarding the offence he has committed for that he is being arrested. Thereafter, the police filed charge-sheet on 18.7.2021 implicating the present applicant on the basis of polygraph test.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court towards para 15 of the bail application wherein it has been categorically indicated that the present applicant is son-in-law of the informant. Therefore, it is beyond any comprehension that if the informant was able to recognize the assailants on the date of incident she could not recognize her close relative. To be more precise, as per learned counsel for the applicant had the offence in question been committed by the present applicant the informant would have recognized him being a close relative but since nothing has been alleged against the present applicant by the informant or other witnesses from 29.5.2018, the date of incident till 5.3.2021 when the polygraph test of Guddu s/o Guru Prasad was conducted, therefore, on the basis of polygraph test the present applicant may not be implicated.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court towards the dictum of Apex Court in re: Selvi and others vs. State of Karnataka (2010) 7 Supreme Court Cases 263 referring para 240, 242 and 264 which reads as under :

"240. We must also contemplate situations where a threat given by the investigators to conduct any of the impugned tests could prompt a person to make incriminatory statements or to undergo some mental trauma. Especially in cases of individuals from weaker sections of society who are unaware of their fundamental rights and unable to afford legal advice, the moth apprehension of undergoing scientific tests that supposedly reveal the truth the act is threatening to administer the impugned tests could also elicit testimony. It is also quite conceivable that an individual may give his/her consent to undergo the said tests on account of threats, false promises or deception by her investigators. For example, a person may be convinced to give his/her consent after being promised that this would lead to an early release from custody or dropping