Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6.2 PW-2: Panch Mahendra Naranbhai-Now so far as the demand and acceptance part of the prosecution story is concerned, this witness was very much sitting just nearby the side of the PW-1, and by and large has supported the prosecution case, when he said-to quote "at about 11-35 A.M. when we came near the Circle of Vishala Hotel near Chamunda Tea Stall, one person on duty stopped the vehicle. He demanded from PW-1: Vasant the papers of the vehicle and the licence, whereupon PW-1 said that he was not having licence and the papers. Thereafter the duty Constable who stopped the vehicle took out the memo-book and asked him to furnish the name and address or to give him the driving licence and papers. The man who demanded the papers and licence was that very person present in the Court. Moment the memo-book was taken out, PW-1 said I have no vehicle papers. Thereafter, the said duty Constable looked at the face of PW-1 and said "what do you want"? Thereupon, PW-1 said (patavi dyo) "settle". Thereupon, the duty Constable said "well give the amount". Thereupon PW-1 took out the currency note of Rs. 20/- from his pocket by his right hand, which was accepted by the accused and kept the same in the right hand side pocket of his pant. Thereafter he walked away with the memo-book. This story in the examination-in-chief as it is and even in cross-examination remained unshaken! This also stands duly corroborated by the contemporaneous record, viz., Panchnama Exh. 14. It is of course quite true that PW-2 Panch has also fumbled little before the Court when apparently he made some honest mistakes regarding firstly, the time and place of preparing the Panchnama Exh. 14 and the place where the Khaki pant from which bribe amount was recovered was seized!! It was indeed quite desirable that the Panch witness who is even otherwise also entitled to refresh his memory by looking at the Panchnama should have been quite careful enough while giving evidence before the Court because many a times much turns upon his evidence when the prosecution has no other dependable evidence to bank upon. Sometimes even minor discrepancies in a given case are unnecessarily magnified and highlighted to mislead the Court from reaching its just and proper conclusion, if in the first instance, learned P.P. incharge of the case and the concerned trial Judges in his turn also not alert and on their respective guards, and mislead to decide a case divorced of its common sense pragmatic approach. In fact, if by chance even Panch witness omitted to state or committed some mistake which went contrary to the contents of Panchnama, then in that case, it is the duty of the learned P.P. and also of the trial Court to see that by inviting the attention of Panch witness to the contents of Panchnama, his memory is refreshed and thereby the same is clarified before the Court. Not to give this important opportunity rather the right of Panch witness to refresh his memory by doing this much needful is indeed quite unjust both to the Panch witness and prosecution also and accordingly improper for the learned P.P. and the learned trial Judge! This sort of carelessness sadly reflects upon the competence of the concerned learned P.P. and the learned trial Judge as well!!! Further, at the same time, merely because the Panch is not proved to be that meticulous, pink of perfection, an ideal perfectionist on some point here or there in giving evidence before the Court with desirable care, caution, concern and circumspection, to discard his evidence on some such small count would not be proper more particularly when we have indeed no reason to doubt the evidence of other two equally important witnesses of the raid, viz., PW-3 and PW-4, who were very much present at the relevant point of time when Panchnama Exh. 14 was drawn and who has stood by the prosecution case like rock. We can certainly not be oblivious to the fact that the PW-2 Panch was giving evidence before the Court practically after about four years!! Quite long lapse of time!! His background of law and knowledge regarding how to give evidence before the Court cannot be as perfect as that of the lawyer, shrewd Investigating Officer or to the unrealistic expectation of some of the hyper technical Courts!! He is after all a layman. Accordingly, if there is indeed nothing otherwise in the cross-examination to indicate that he was out of falsely implicate the accused either at his own instance because of some personal enmity with the accused or at the instance of the complainant for some consideration to wreck personal vengeance, his evidence cannot be lightly brushed aside because some obvious unavoidable possible human error creeps in his evidence more particularly, when it is recorded after quite long lapse of time!! Further, assuming for the sake of argument that because of the alleged flow in evidence given by PW-2 before the Court, he ought to have been declared hostile and was accordingly declared hostile then even the heart beats of the prosecution case cannot be said to have stopped as PW-3 and PW-4 clearly sustains and supports the life of the prosecution case. Out of the two kidneys, two lungs, two legs, two hands even if one of them ceases to function and taken out then even human life does get hopefully and successfully sustained on one of it!! These are the witnesses who have personally no axe to grind in falsely implicating the accused. Moreover, since there is nothing in the cross-examination to over-shadow, cloud and doubt their overall credibility, the same cannot be thrown over board gifting away the accused cheap benefit of doubt, acquittal, putting unjust premium over the evidence of dishonest witnesses, letting down the prosecution case.