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
8 paragraphs · 271 wordsApplication seeking recall of the Court's order is allowed.
We have now heard the learned Counsel on both sides on merits.
According to Mr. A.K. Srivastava, learned senior counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent No.2, our order dated 17.11.2014 had made it clear that an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. to add accused-Manoj Singh could only be if there was something new that is forthcoming from the evidence and not otherwise.
We have perused the statements of P.W. Nos. 3, 4 & 5. Each one of these witnesses has specifically implicated Manoj Singh stating that he fired shots at the deceased. In addition, PW-4 has specifically stated that one could reach Gwalior if one passed from Dong within a period of 10-15 minutes. The same thing is stated by PW-5-Dilip Singh. This would shake Manoj's alibi that he was not at the place where the incident took place because it is clear that he was at the other place half an hour before the said incident.
We have also perused the judgment of this Court in Brijendra Singh and Others vs. State of Rajasthan, (2017) 7 SCC 706 (para 13) and the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Hardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab & Others, (2014) 3 SCC 92 (para 106) and are satisfied that this is a case which falls clearly within the parameters laid down in the said judgments.
This being the case, we set aside the judgment of the High Court dated 14.07.2017 and reinstate our judgment of 09.03.2018.
The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
Pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.