JUDGMENT 1. - Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that the order dated 9th May, 2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Sikar Camp Sri Madhopur in Sessions Case No. 14/2006 titled as State v. Tarachand whereby application filed by the petitioner under Section 311 Cr.PC. for re-examination was dismissed, be set aside. 2. Petitioner is an injured eye-witness of the murder case. On the statement of the petitioner, case F.I.R. No. 47/2006 was registered at P.S. Khandela, District Sikar. Above said F.I.R. was investigated and a report under Section 173 Cr.PC. was submitted. The case was committed to the court of Sessions and was entrusted for trial to the court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Sikar Camp Sri Madhopur. 3. Accused was charged for offence of murder. On the date fixed for examination of the petitioner as prosecution witness, he appeared in the court and turned hostile. 4. Petitioner was examined as a witness on 21st February, 2007. About two and half months later, on 9th May, 2007, petitioner filed an application in which it was stated that on the date when he was to be examined as a witness, four unknown persons rubbed some sharp-edged weapon with the body of the petitioner and threatened him not to depose freely in the court. It is stated that due to fear of the accused, in Court the petitioner had not identified the accused. On 9th May, 2007, petitioner made a prayer by filing an application that he be re-examined. The prayer made by the petitioner was rejected by the trial court. 5. The application filed to state that due to the threat, petitioner could not depose and state truth lacks merit. How and as to when, threat given to the petitioner, abruptly came to an end on 9th May, 2007, no explanation is forthcoming. The Court cannot come to rescue of a turn court. The petitioner had not identified the accused in the court, thereafter, they were moving freely in the corridors of the court. The subsequent identification of accused shall be rendered meaningless as petitioner by now has seen accused. 6. The conduct of the petitioner is unnatural, improbable and unconvincing. No compliant was made immediately after his examination was concluded. 7. Due to pendency of the case, the trial has been withheld for a period of six years. The subsequent identification of accused shall be rendered meaningless as petitioner by now has seen accused. 6. The conduct of the petitioner is unnatural, improbable and unconvincing. No compliant was made immediately after his examination was concluded. 7. Due to pendency of the case, the trial has been withheld for a period of six years. It is alleged that accused is languishing behind the bars. 8. Counsel for the petitioner has relied on Zahira Habbibullah Sheikh & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors., 2004(4) SCC 158 commonly known as Best Bakery's case. The judgment relied was delivered on the facts of that case and is not attracted on the facts of the present case. 9. Hence in view of the above, the present petition is hereby dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******