JOGARAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the allegation levelled against the petitioner to the effect that he inflicted knife blow, which resulted into death of the deceased is false. It is further submitted that the police, during the course of investigation, recorded statements of two eye witnesses namely Akhatar Hussain and Bharat Kumar, who stated that they had seen the petitioner while inflicting knife blow to the deceased. It is submitted that now, statements of Akhatar Hussain and Bharat Kumar have been recorded before the trial court as PW-3 and PW-4 respectively and both of them had not supported the prosecution story and turned hostile. It is submitted that though, the police recovered a knife at the instance of the petitioner, however, in the FSL report, it has not been mentioned that the blood stains on the said knife are matching with the blood group of the deceased. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in view of the above, it is clear that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case, therefore, he may be enlarged on bail.

(3.) Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that the police lodged FIR on the basis of 'parcha-bayan' of the deceased, in which, he had specifically stated that the knife injury was inflicted by the petitioner, which resulted into death his death. It is further submitted that Dr. Ramesh Chandra Chouhan (PW-6) deposed that 'parcha-bayan' of the deceased was recorded in his presence, in which, he attributed knife blow to the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the I.O. Vagat Singh (PW-15) had also confirmed that the deceased, in his 'parcha-bayan' has attributed the knife blow, which resulted into his death, to the petitioner. It is further submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that though, Bharat Kumar (PW-4) has been declared hostile by the trial court, but he in his examination-in-chief had specifically stated that the petitioner assaulted the deceased along with other co-accused persons. Learned Public Prosecutor, thus, prayed that in view of the above piece of evidence, it cannot be said that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case.