Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

74. The testimony of PW1 has been challenged by the appellants on various counts- that the same is not trustworthy and his conduct was not natural. It is argued on behalf of the appellants that PW1 stated that he had received two knife blows, but his MLC shows that he received only one knife injury; PW1 had not given the route he had taken to go his sister's house; PW1 admitted that a civil dispute was going on between his family and family of accused Kamal; PW1 had not explained as to why he had not taken his father to a nearby nursing home instead of GTB Hospital which was at a far off place; PW1 stated that his first statement was recorded in the police station while the second one was recorded in his house, whereas PW27- Insp.Amrit Raj stated that the statement of PW1 was recorded in the hospital; PW1 had stated that he did not tell the police that accused Sunil was having iron rod; PW1-Dharmender is untrue when his testimony is confronted with his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.; PW1 could not explain as to why he was left alive when the deceased was fatally injured; PW1 stated that his statement recorded by the police was unsigned, but this fact has been negated by statement Ex.PW24/DX1 which is his signed statement; PW1 had motive to falsely implicate appellant Kamal in the present case, as he was aware that GPA of the house in question was in favour of accused Kamal and that in a quarrel, PW1 and Kamal were sent to lock up in the proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C.; only injury attributed to appellant Pankaj Sharma is on the ankle of PW1 but the same has not been found in his MLC; there was an injury on the hip of the deceased, but the same could not have been inflicted as the deceased was held by accused Deepak, Kamal and Ashok from the back; DD No.25A was got lodged by accused Raja at 8.20 p.m. on 19.12.1997 to the effect that he was having a quarrel with the deceased and his family members but the said fact has not been investigated by the IO and the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out; TSR driver was not examined nor the TSR was examined to draw blood samples from the same; motorcycle of PW1-Dharmender had also not been examined; in the initial statement PW1 did not disclose the name of any of the accused which creates doubt about the story of the prosecution and false implication of the appellants.