Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In these circumstances, the witness is again put to the accused and his new counsel for cross examination but he has expressed his inability.

XXX by accused Nil (opportunity given).

RO&AC."

15. Order sheet of the trial court reveals that on 20 th August, 2008 the appellant had filed an application for interim bail on the ground that his wife was unwell. This application was dismissed on 20 th August, 2008 recording that counsel for the appellant was not inclined to cross-examine witnesses and his conduct was not appropriate as he was avoiding cross-examination. It was recorded that there appeared to be something amiss and fishy. The appellant was subsequently granted interim bail vide order dated 30th September, 2008 by the High Court in Bail Application No. 1820/2008 for a period of six weeks on the ground that his wife was undergoing treatment. Om Prakash (PW-1) and Babli (PW-2) thereupon filed an application for cancellation of bail wherein it was alleged that after the release the appellant had started threatening them. The said application was disposed of vide order dated 8th October, 2008 requiring PW-1 and PW-2 to move to the High Court, and through legal aid, if required. The appellant surrendered thereafter on 15th November, 2008. There was another change in counsel and on or about 7th March, 2009 an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. was moved for recalling of PW- 1, PW-2 and PW-3 for their cross-examination. This was allowed vide order dated 20th July, 2009 recording that only one opportunity would be granted and in case the said witnesses were present, no further date would be given.

18. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 were re-examined by the Public Prosecutor on 16th November, 2009 in view of the testimonies in their cross-examination. PW-1 and PW-2 admitted in the re-examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor that they knew the appellant from before as he was residing in premises No. E-39, Camp No. 2, Nangloi. PW-1 further accepted that the appellant was granted interim bail by the High Court vide order dated 30th September, 2008 and he had filed an application for cancellation of the interim bail (Exhibit PW-1/PX), which was signed by him at point A. On the question, who had pressurized or tutored him to make a false statement, PW-1 has stated that he did not remember whether the police officer was Head Constable, ASI, SI or IO. He has further deposed that he had not made any complaint to the senior police officers that he had been pressurized to make a statement against the appellant or that the appellant had not killed his two sons. PW-2, in her re-examination by the Public Prosecutor, denied having moved any application for cancellation for interim bail which is factually untrue and false. She, however, accepted that she had not complained to any police officer about pressure being put on her to implicate the appellant as the murderer of her two sons. PW-3 who had resiled from her earlier statement, in her re-examination, accepted that she was residing at E- 17, Camp No. 2 Nangloi which is adjacent to the residence of PW-1 and PW-2, E-18, Camp No. 2, Nangloi. She has accepted that the appellant was residing in the same street but claimed that his house was at a distance. She has accepted that on 29th May, 2008 she had not stated that a police officer had pressurized her and she did not remember whether the said police officer was a Head Constable, ASI, SI, Inspector or IO of the case. She did not make any complaint to a senior police officer.