Sunday, Dec 04, 2022 | Last Update : 08:08 PM IST

  Metros   Mumbai  05 Jul 2018  Fake encounter: discharge plea of 2 cops nixed

Fake encounter: discharge plea of 2 cops nixed

THE ASIAN AGE.
Published : Jul 5, 2018, 3:44 am IST
Updated : Jul 5, 2018, 3:44 am IST

Out of four only one witness, a lawyer by profession, stood by his statement.

The prosecution in the 2005 Sohrabuddin Sh-eikh and Prajapati fake encounter cases has so far examined 129 witnesses. (Photo: File/Representational)
 The prosecution in the 2005 Sohrabuddin Sh-eikh and Prajapati fake encounter cases has so far examined 129 witnesses. (Photo: File/Representational)

Mumbai: Three more witnesses in the 2006 Tulsiram Pr-ajapati alleged fake en-counter case on We-dnesday turned hostile taking the number of witnesses turning hostile in the case to 77.  Meanwhile, the Bombay high court on We-dnesday upheld the decision of a special CBI court and rejected the revision application fi-led by two Rajasthan cops seeking discharge in the cases. According to the prosecution, Sheikh's wife Kausarbi was also killed soon after Sohrabuddin and all these killings are being tried together.

The prosecution in the 2005 Sohrabuddin Sh-eikh and Prajapati fake encounter cases has so far examined 129 witnesses. A special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court judge SJ Sharma on Wednesday declared three panch witnesses hostile after they contradicted their earlier statements given to the central investigating agency.

Out of four only one witness, a lawyer by profession, stood by his statement. Justice A M Badar on Wednesday rejected the revision applications fi-led by Himanshu Singh Rajawat and Shyam Si-ngh Charan, both sub-inspectors of Rajasthan police force. The trial court had rejected their discharge plea on July 31, 2017 and both had filed a revision application in the HC challenging the rejection of their discharge pleas.

In the same case, Justice Badar while rejecting the applications for discharge by the Rajasthan cops, observed, “It is well settled that revisional jurisdiction is required to be exercised sparingly and that too in exceptional cases, when there is some glaring defect of the procedure.”

M03

Tags: fake en-counter, exceptional cases, sohrabuddin, cbi