JANGIR KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

(2.) Learned counsel Mr. Shardul Bishnoi representing the accused-applicant vehemently and fervently urged that the entire prosecution case is false and fabricated. The applicant was not named in Ex.P/43 - Parcha Bayan of Brajlal Sharma (P.W. 5), who has been considered the most reliable witness of the prosecution in the impugned judgment. He urged that Brajlal (P.W. 5) was examined twice during the trial. In his first statement, he did not attribute any specific overt act to the accused-applicant. He further urged that principal accused i.e. Nabbu Khan who is alleged to have snatched the gun of Maniram was not chargedsheeted by the police and Kashmir who is alleged to have taken the gun from Nabbu and fired the same towards the complainant party, has been acquitted by the trial court. He urges that the case is of wholesale over implication of accused persons. Five accused named in Ex.P/43 - Parcha Bayan of Brajlal (P.W. 5), to whom specific allegations were attributed, have been acquitted by the trial court and thus, as per Mr. Bishnoi, the applicant has strong case so as to assail the impugned judgment. He thus, implored the Court to accept the application for SOS.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel Mr. Bishnoi. However, he too is not in a position to dispute the fact that the applicant was not named in the Parcha Bayan of Brajlal (Ex.P/43). He also does not dispute the fact that there are significant discrepancies regarding the role assigned to the accused in the statements of the injured eye-witnesses.