JITENDRA CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.

(2.) Perused the record.

(3.) Submission of counsel for the applicant is that the applicant was not nominated by name in the FIR. The incident took place on 20.8.2015 and for the first time, the complicity of the applicant surfaced after so many months on 29.2.2016 in the statement of one Altamas, who claims to have overheard the conversations of the applicant and co-accused in which they are said to have impliedly admitted their guilt. Further submission is that on the same day one Tribhuwan Singh was examined, who claims himself to be the eye witness of the occurrence and gave the version that co-accused Ajit Yadav is the man, who shot at the deceased causing his death while the applicant was driving the motorcycle and he could know the name of the applicant-accused for the reason because co-accused had himself at the time of incident cried out that his name was Ajit Yadav and then he had also exhorted the applicant to drive fast and while doing so he again took the name of the applicant. Further submission is that this appears to be highly improbable story and even this kind of claim by witness Tribhuwan Singh has been made after many months of the occurrence and had there been any truth in his claim, he ought to have disclosed this fact much earlier and should not have waited for months together to tell this fact. Contention is that even according to the version given by Tribhuwan Singh when he came to know the arrest of the co-accused, he went there and saw him and thus made himself sure that accused Ajit Yadav had shot at the deceased. Further submission is that in this view of the matter also, the case of the applicant appears to be distinguishable from the case of co-accused Ajit Yadav as the post mortem examination report would indicate only one injury received by the deceased and according to prosecution version, co-accused Ajit Yadav, is the author of the injury caused to the deceased resulting his death. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been submitted that the applicant is languishing in jail since 12.5.2016 and in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.