Learned counsel for the applicant-appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in the instant matter. He next added that incident is said to have taken place on 14.8.2019 whereas the F.I.R. was lodged on 15.8.2019 at 2:49 PM. The appellant is not named in the F.I.R. and name of the appellant came into light only in the statement of the coaccused Sachin Kumar as he was arrested on 19.08.2019. He added that in fact, there was C.C.T.V. camera at the place of alleged incident and from the details of CCTV footage, it is evident that at the said time of incident, neither there was any Safari Car nor any incident has taken place. He further added that there is an important injured witness, namely Himanshu, who was said to be sitting on scooty at the time of alleged incident and on his statement recorded by the police after 71 days, the charge sheet was submitted. Statement of Himanshu was recorded as P.W. 2 and he has been declared hostile as he has not named the appellant and he has also denied the prosecution story. He next added that there was one another important eye witness, namely, Chhailu Nishad, who has stated that Safari Car after hitting the scooty ran away, therefore, it seems that this is a case of accident and not a case of deliberate hit. He next submits that earlier on 8.8.2019, the incident is said to have taken place but the appellant was also not named in that F.I.R.
