Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Iftedar Azam (PW 4) is a highly interested inimical and partisan witness. He has changed his version, from time to time, to suit the prosecution case and adjusted with the medical evidence. His version sustains the defence allegation against him. His evidence is highly interested, inimical and partisan in character. He has contradicted himself in material particulars. His evidence is belied by the medical evidence. He can neither be corroborated by his previous statement nor by independent witness. He has admitted the enmity with the accused and relationship with the deceased. He is not supported by other eye-witnesses to the offence. His effort has been to involve the accused and name of Sanna alias Sageer Ahmed can be mentioned in this regard whose name has also been mentioned by him as one of the accused, but he was found at Hyderabad on the day of occurrence. He admitted that when the police arrived at the scene and he was asked about the persons, he suspected having committed a crime. He stated that he did not tell the Doctor about any name nor about the person, who fired the bullet, but told the Police that there existed old enmity with the accused and it appeared that the act may have been committed by them. Almost in the same situation, the Apex Court in AIR 1981 SC 1230 : (1981 Cri LJ 736) (Sevi v. State of Tamil Nadu), said (in para 3) :

Para 3 :...All the eye-witnesses are partisan witnesses and notwithstanding the fact that four of them were injured we are unable to accept their evidence to the peculiar circumstances of the case. Where the entire evidence is of a partisan character impartial investigation can lend assurance to the Court to enable it: to accept such partisan evidence. But where the investigation itself is found to be tainted the task of the Court to sift the evidence becomes very difficult indeed....

20. In the First Information Report, varacity of which may be disccused later, Iftedar Azam (PW 4) states that the accused were holding pistol and Mohd. Shafique fired bullets which hit the deceased in the chest. Accused Irphan fired bullets from pistol and hit him. He changed his version and stated that the revolver was used to suit the prosecution case since revolver was recovered from the accused with six cartridges. Similarly, his version was that bullets hit the deceased in the chest, but when it was found that the deceased was hit only by one bullet that too in the back, he changed the version and stated that the deceased moved the side with the result that the bullet hit the deceased in the manner it was found. Further, perusal of other parts of the statement demonstrates quite clearly that his conduct displayed sense of enmity against the accused. See AIR 1990 SC 1628 : (1990 Cri LJ 1601) (B.N. Singh v. State of Gujarat).