AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 185 wordsDr. Sarojnei Saksena, J.
The petitioner''s counsel''s averment is that the incident took place on 26.11.1993. He was arrested on 3.1.1994. In the inquest report the two alleged eyewitnesses were not mentioned. Uptil now in the Sessions trial only seven formal witnesses have been examined and the case is now fixed on 18/19.7.1995.
Ms. Neena Madan, learned counsel explained that one of the alleged eye witnesses Sohan Lal, who lodged the complaint was examined on the date of the incident.
The circumstances against the petitioner are that he has inimical relations with the deceased and his family. The applicant refused to join identification parade. He has also made an extrajudicial confession as is alleged by the prosecution. The role attributed to him is apparent from the report. No doubt he made exhortation to his companions to kill the deceased. It is submitted that he is aged about 62 years and is a heart patient.
Considering all the facts stated above, the trial court is hereby directed to conclude the case by the end of August 1995. Prayer for bail is declined.