Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
20. We have heard Mr. Sameer Chandra Advocate for Appellants Murari, Rakesh and Suresh, Ms. Meenakshi Lekhi Advocate for Appellant Sandeep, Mr. Ranjit Singh Advocate for Appellant Chandan and Mr. Jaideep Malik, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and have perused the record.
21. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellants that PW-2 and PW-
9A who were claimed by the prosecution to be eye witnesses to the occurrence are chance witnesses. Their testimonies do not inspire confidence as their conduct was unnatural. PW-22 (Constable Rohtash) who claimed himself to be an eye witness was disowned by the IO to be so. The testimonies of the three witnesses (i.e. PW-2, PW-9A and PW-22) are discrepant on major aspects of the prosecution version. Mohd. Sagir (PW-9A) did not give even the slightest description of the assailants; Constable Rohtash (PW-22) an alleged eye witness was associated in the search and apprehension of the culprits, though the culprits were previously not known to him which would make the investigation tainted and unfair. Therefore, it would be unsafe to rely upon their testimonies to base conviction of the Appellants.