DURGESH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER -Durgesh son of Nawal Singh, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of concession of regular bail, in a case registered against him along with his wife Bharti and Anoop, vide FIR No. 414 dated 29.10.2013, on accusation of having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, by the police of Police Station DLF Qutub Enclave, Gurgaon.

(2.) NOTICE of the petition was issued to the State.

(3.) INDISPUTEDLY , the present case was registered against the accused in the wake of statement of complainant Puneet, brother of Gitender, deceased, in which, he has claimed that on 29.10.2013, petitioner and his other co -accused were present at the spot and petitioner fired a short, culminating into death of Gitender. During the course of investigation, Bharti and Anoop, co -accused of the petitioner were found to be innocent and exonerated by the police. Subsequently, complainant Puneet, while appearing as PW -2 in the Court did not support the prosecution case at all and has resiled from his earlier statement (Annexure P -5 colly.), wherein, he has stated that petitioner did not cause the murder of Gitender. On the contrary some 5/6 persons came and started firing on them, causing the death of Gitender, deceased. Not only that, another witness of the prosecution Abhishek Yadav, while appearing as PW -3 in the Court, has also resiled from his earlier statement. What is the evidentiary value and admissibility of such statements of complainant PW -2 Puneet and PW -3 Abhishek Yadav (Hostile witnesses), against the petitioner, inter alia, would be a moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court.