PARVEEN Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in the instant application filed under Sec. 528 of BNSS, 2023 is for placing on record the statement of PW-2 as Annexure P-3. Allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions.

(2.) As per the case of the prosecution, on 29/7/2024, a telephonic information was received in the Police Station about one Amit being admitted to the hospital with severe head injuries, which were declared dangerous to life, and he was placed on a ventilator, making him unfit to give a statement. Vinod, who was also injured with four injuries, stated that on the same night, Amit and he went to see some boys from their village, and near Surender's house, a Bolero car driven by Parveen struck Amit with intent to kill. Parveen, Meer Singh and others emerged from the vehicle armed with iron rods and steel pipes, and started beating Amit and Vinod and further threatened them.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the FIR (supra). The complainant as well as the injured have suffered the injuries in a car accident. Further, as per the case set up by the prosecution, Amit has received a solitary injury with a blunt weapon and as such, it would be a moot point to be decided by the learned trial Court, during the course of trial, whether the offence under Sec. 307 IPC, is made out or not. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the testimony of PW-2 Vinod, who is complainant as well as one of the injured and submits that Vinod has categorically stated that they suffered the injuries when all of a sudden a car came from behind and hit him and other injured namely Amit. Thereafter, learned APP has declared the complainant hostile as he has not supported the case, set up by the prosecution.