Sohit Raghav v. State Of Haryana
CRM-M-7871-2026 -1-
!" #$%$ &' ()*$+,
' -. /0 //
! "
!
### / ,1 .2' $ !
%&' ( ) ) *+*' , -( ./ 0
) ! 0! 0 12 &3 4& +% *+*%
'+*2 5 !
'6 " 7 0 588 *6+6+8*+*9
7 +6 +& *+*9
588 9'*468*+*9 0
7 *6 *+*9 * $ 0
0) !
77
!!
4& +% *+*% ) 7 )!!
7 +& +6 *+*% !
CRM-M-7871-2026 -2-
! 7 :
) 55$ 7
7 !
! !1; :
7! ! 0! $
7 ! ) 7 $ !! 7
70 $ !
0 0
7 0 5 0 7) !! 0 8
!!"#
!
$
" $ % "
$
&
$ !
' (
CRM-M-7871-2026 -3- '
2 0!
! 0
!7!
7 12 2 7 !1; ! 0 $ ! 7 $ 8
$ 7!7 ! !
<8'!
0!
55$ 0
!
7
7 7 $ 77 ! = 7 ! 7 1 = :!+%
0
>7 0
7
+4 +6 7 $! !! )
0!
7 !
!
0!
$ !!
0 !
0
7) 77
0!
'+%,*/ 2 5 7>777 4+ ! 0!
7 ! ! !0
0 7 7
? 07
) 0!
2
0 !!
% 0
!
0 8
@
CRM-M-7871-2026 -4-
! ) !!
!
!!
!
7 0 !
7
7 $
0 !!
This Court has heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. 6.
The petitioner is alleged to have caused multiple injuries with a rod to the victim which resulted into his death. The prosecution as well as the petitioner have relied upon a CCTV camera footage showing the incident and revealing that it was the victim who had firstly opened fire upon the uncle of the victim with a firearm and then the complainant had caused injuries to him with a rod which led to his death. While passing the previous order, this Court has observed that the petitioner appeared to have exceeded self defence at the time of causing injuries to the victim which were 13 in number. As submitted by learned State counsel as many as 10 out of 29 prosecution witnesses have already been examined. As such, it cannot be stated that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of the trial.
The petitioner has not been able to point out any drastic or substantive change in the circumstances. Though a feeble attempt has been made now to say that the authenticity of the pen drive cannot be established but at the same time, the same has been relied by the petitioner's counsel at the time of addressing arguments.
CRM-M-7871-2026 -5gravity of the allegations as levelled against the petitioner, the quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail, the stage of the trial and the attendant facts and circumstances, this Court finds no compelling ground to allow the petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 7.
It is clarified that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
7 ! 0
! 3/ 4 ()*$+, ) * + $ , - .,/ 0 +
- .,/