The prosecution case, as could be gathered, is that when the deceased Vineet along with PW-1-Rajveer Singh and PW-3-Jitendra Singh were passing through the shop of one Raju Paanwala, four accused persons surrounded them. Basant, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that the trial court and the High Court have grossly erred in convicting the appellant and maintaining the same respectively. No doubt that the learned counsel for the respondent- State is justified in submitting that the appeal of the co- accused has already been dismissed by this Court; however, it is settled law that dismissal of a special leave petition does not amount to affirmation of the view taken by the High Court or the trial court. However, it is to be noted that his statement is recorded after a period of two months from the date of the occurrence. The perusal of the evidence of I.O./PW-6 (Lalmani Gautam) would reveal that there is no explanation as to why the statement of the witnesses was recorded belatedly. The appellant-accused is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/remand-of-writ-petition-for-restoration-and-decision-on-merits/
Case Title: NATTHU SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (2023 INSC 56)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001651-001651 / 2019
