Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. Poonam (PW-3) in her deposition on 29th May, 2008 identified the appellant as a perpetrator. She has stated that at 11 P.M. on 22nd April, 2006 her cousin Sunil was sleeping on the cot when he was shot at by the appellant. She became emotional and starting weeping in the court. She was consoled and her statement was recorded after some time. She went on to further narrate that she, her uncle and aunt chased the appellant. On hearing the commotion, Somnath, who was upstairs, came down and tried to apprehend the appellant. Near Narang Hospital, the appellant grappled with her when she was trying to apprehend him. The appellant pushed her and shot at Somnath and then fired another shot at Somnath when he fell down. She deposed that father of the appellant was standing there and she rushed and pleaded with him. He caught hold of her hair and thrashed her. She started weeping again, during her deposition in the court and was consoled. She has testified that the appellant boarded a car parked on the Rohtak Road behind tractors and fled away. There was another boy in the car but she did not know/identify him. She has affirmed that she had certainly seen the appellant who had shot at her brothers and had grappled with her. The two brothers were taken to SGM Hospital by Om Prakash (PW-1). She did not accompany them to the hospital. Later on she was informed that her brothers had died. She had sustained minor abrasions but was not medically examined.

12. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the testimony of PW-3 on 29th May, 2008 is doubtful and debatable. She has referred to the father of the appellant, who was purportedly present at the spot and has stated that she had grappled with the appellant while trying to apprehend him. Reference is made to the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 and the difference is pointed out. PW-1 and PW-2, in their depositions on 29th May, 2008, have not referred to the father of the appellant being present at the spot. We note that the father of the appellant was not prosecuted or charged. To this extent, PW-3 may have exaggerated and tried to implicate the father, i.e., an elder family member of the appellant but this by itself cannot be a ground to disbelieve her entire testimony. PW-1 and PW-2 have clearly affirmed presence of PW-3 at the spot. PW-1 has stated that he fell down after being pushed by the appellant and sustained injuries on his knees. He has deposed that Poonam (PW-3) was ahead of them. PW-2 the mother due to her age could not have chased the appellant. PW-2 has admitted that her husband and Poonam were chasing the appellant faster than her. The presence of one or two persons in the car, as deposed by PW-1 and PW-2, and one person, as stated by PW-3, is not really a contradiction. PW-3 had a better view and look at the car as she ran faster and had tried to grapple with the appellant. The site plan placed on record marked Exhibit PW-22/A and PW-9/A show the two spots where Sunil and Somnath were shot. Sunil was shot in front of the house whereas Somnath was shot in front of Narang Clinic which was at some distance and at the T-point where the street meets the Rohtak Road. The car was apparently parked on the Rohtak Road.

16. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 were thereafter cross-examined on 16th November, 2009. PW-1 and PW-2 in their cross-examination took a somersault and deposed that it was dark and they had covered themselves with the sheet to avoid mosquitoes. They uncovered their face after hearing the noise of the gun shot. Assailant had already left the spot and was at a distance. Due to darkness and distance they could not identify/see the assailant. They deposed that the appellant was never shown to them by the police after the occurrence at the time of investigation. PW-1 went to the extent of stating that he had seen the appellant for the first time in the court when his statement was recorded on 29th May, 2008. PW-1 and PW-2 deposed that their earlier statements made on 29th May, 2008 was at the behest of the police officers present outside the court who had tutored them and had asked them to identify the appellant as the person who had committed murder of their son. PW-1 went to the extent of stating that he had not signed papers of arrest of the appellant and police had never made any inquiry from him. Appellant was innocent and had been falsely implicated. PW-3 had stated that it was night time, there was no electricity at the spot and the deceased was sleeping at a distance from their house. At the time of occurrence she was sleeping and woke up after hearing the gun shot noise. She had not seen the person who had fired the gun shot at her cousins, as the assailant had absconded. The appellant, who was present in the court was never shown to her by the police at any point of time before her deposition in the court and in fact she had seen the appellant for the first time in the court when her statement was recorded on 29th May, 2008. She has claimed that her earlier statement was tutored and she had identified the appellant at the behest of the police. She claimed that the appellant had never grappled with her and never pushed her and she had not received any injuries. She had not seen the appellant at the spot and he had not uttered any word to her after the occurrence. She has claimed that the appellant was innocent and had been falsely implicated by the police.