Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

19. So far this Article 23 is concerned, it is this witness Ganesh (PW 6) who has given the evidence in Court. He was very specific and assertive in stating before the court that when the agreement was signed by him as a witness Marathe was not present, that Marathe did not execute the agreement in his presence and, Joshi - accused No. 6 represented that it was signed by Marathe. In fact this witness has stated that he raised his objection before Joshi about the signature of Marathe, because witness knew that Marathe used to sign in Modi script. However, Joshi told him (PW 6) that Marathe had signed the document and it was the signature of Marathe. This witness (PW 6) has also stated that the transaction of payment of Rs. 50,000/- to Marathe, as per Article 23, did not take in his presence.

21. When witness P.W.6 - Ganesh has clearly stated that Marathe did not sign in his presence in either of the two places on the document; that Marathe was not present at that time and no transaction of giving Rs. 50,000/- to Marathe took place in his presence, then burden heavily shifts upon accused No. 6 to prove that Marathe had executed the document (Article 23), that Marathe had signed it on two places and that Rs. 50,000/- was given to Marathe by accused No. 6.

22. The Prosecution has examined one Subhash Dattatraya Dabke (PW 8). However, he turned hostile obviously because accused No. 6 Ajit Joshi was his brother in law. Joshi - accused No. 6 was running a xerox-typing centre. This witness (PW 8) was working there as a typist. His real younger sister was given to accused No. 6. He was examined because, according to the prosecution, and earlier statement to the police by this witness in which he had stated that on 13.2.1987 accused NO. 6 came to his residence and told him that settlement had arrived at between him and Marathe and, that he signed Article 23 at Sr. No. 2 as witness at the instance of Joshi. He contradicted with his earlier statement. In the cross examination on behalf of accused No. 6, this witness (PW 8) admitted that on 13.2.1987, at about 8.15. p.m. when Joshi was present in the shop, Marathe had came there, signed Article 23 in his presence and Joshi paid him Rs. 50,000/-. These admissions, brought out in the cross examination of this witness, are of no use to the defence. Firstly because witness is closely related to accused No. 6. Secondly, he has turned hostile and resile completely from his earlier statement. . So far as cross examination of P.W.6-Ganesh is concerned, certain omission was brought on record with reference to his statement that he could not assign any reason for the omission in his statement before the police that he told accused No. 6 Joshi about disparity in signature of Marathe on said document Article No. 23 as it was usual practice of Marathe to sign in Modi script. In the cross examination there is one more suggestion which is denied. But the suggestion is very important wherein the witness denied that he had not signed Article 23 as witness in good faith and he signed it because he was sure that it bears signature of Marathe. There is no suggestion at all to this important witness by any of the accused and particularly accused No. 6 that he signed the document in presence of Marathe or that in his presence Rs. 50,000/- were given to Marathe.