ANSHUL CHAURASIA Vs. STATE OF MP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant has strenuously argued that except PW1 Rahul Jain, who has an old enmity with the present applicant, no other prosecution witness has corroborated the prosecution story and all of them have turned hostile. It is submitted that since all other witnesses have turned hostile, only on the basis of testimony of PW1 Rahul Jain, conviction of the present applicant cannot be secured. It is further submitted that the sole testimony of PW1 Rahul Jain, who has not been shown to be present on the scene of crime by any other co-witness, is not a reliable testimony and that deserves to be discarded. It is submitted that on the basis of the sole witness, the conviction cannot be secured and in any case, the allegation of causing stab would is on co-accused Vikas Tiwari and not on the present applicant. It is submitted that there are hardly any injuries caused by fists and kicks and, therefore, it is a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail.

(3.) It is true that the first informant PW2 Surendra Sharma has turned hostile, but it is also true that this hostile witness has admitted that he had put his signatures on Ex.P/2 so also on seizure memo (Ex.P/3) and further admitted that the Police had made investigation and recorded his statement.