SACHIN @ TEEKLA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused-Appellant has laid this appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'Act of 1989') to assail impugned order dated 16.11.2017, rendered by Special Court, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jodhpur (for short, 'learned trial Court'), rejecting his second bail application in Sessions Case No. 128/2017. The Sessions case aforesaid is arising out of FIR No. 01/2017 of Police Station Kuri Bhagtasani, wherein appellant is charged for offences under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989.

(2.) Appellant made endeavour before the learned trial Court at the first instance for seeking bail but the same was rejected vide order dated 04.07.2017. Against that order, appeal was preferred by the appellant and the same was registered as S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 1012/2017. The said appeal was dismissed by this Court on 27.07.2017 with liberty to renew prayer for bail after recording statements of complainant Gauri Shankar and two other eye-witnesses. It is in that background, after recording the evidence of these witnesses appellant has made endeavour for seeking bail before the learned trial Court but his that effort has proved abortive.

(3.) It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that complainant Gauri Shankar (P.W.2) has turned hostile during trial, inasmuch as, he has completely disowned his earlier statement. Learned counsel has further submitted that the witness has not whispered anything against the appellant about commission of the aforesaid offence. While referring to the statements of other witnesses, Pushpa Devi (P.W.3)-mother of the deceased and Narendra (P.W.4) brother of the deceased, it is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that these witnesses have also not supported the prosecution case by turning hostile. Learned counsel has also urged that even independent witness Mukesh Kumar, who is neighbour of the deceased, has also retracted from his earlier version by turning hostile, therefore, while relying on the testimonies of all these witnesses, he would contend that these material change in the circumstances ought to have been taken note of by the learned trial Court while considering bail plea of the appellant. Learned counsel has further submitted that as the learned trial Court in exercise of its discretion has not considered fractured testimonies of all these witnesses, therefore, impugned order is liable to be upset and appellant deserves to be released on bail.