Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

53. A number of other contentions pointing out inconsistencies and discrepancies in the oral statement of witnesses and documents on record have been highlighted. Many of them we perceive are explainable and do not substantially affect the prosecution version or tilt the scale in favour of the appellants. These are being noted hereunder for the sake of completeness:-

(a) Difference in the time of arrival of ACP, Sanjeev Kumar Yadav (PW10) at the Adarsh Nagar bus stand, i.e. the place of arrest of Ameen Wani has been highlighted. PWs-1, 2, 8 and 10 in their examination-in-chief have deposed as to the arrival of ACP Sanjeev Kumar Yadav (PW10) at the place of arrest of Ameen Wani at about 3:50 PM. Contra, PWs-1, 2, 5 and 8 in their statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C., had asserted that ACP Sanjeev Kumar Yadav (PW10) had reached the said location at 5:30 PM. When confronted, PW10 claimed that this was a typographical error. The correct time was 3:50 PM. Appellant Ameen Wani was detained at 2:50 PM and PW10‟s arrival at the spot at 3:50 PM is more logical and plausible. It is noticeable that Head Constable Rustam, (PW5), who had left the spot with rukka at 4:20 PM, had deposed that by the time he left the spot, PW10 had arrived. A typographical error in recording the time as 3:50 PM, instead of 5:30 PM, is possible as it could be the result of interchange of numericals, „3‟ and „5‟.

(d) PWs-1, 2, 8 and 10‟s deposition that they returned to the Police Station Lodhi Colony from Adarsh Nagar bus stand within half an hour, i.e. at 7 PM is again misplaced, as the time of departure would only be an estimate and not precise. The witnesses could well have left Adarsh Nagar 15 to 20 minutes earlier than as stated. It would be inordinate and unrealistic to expect the witnesses to record or remember the exact time of their every movement.

(e) DD No.14 (Ex.PW10/DA) and DD No.15 (Ex.PW10/DB) are stated to be recorded at the police station Lodhi Colony at 7:00 PM and 7:30 PM, respectively. Certified true copies of said DD entries marked Ex.PW10/DA and Ex.PW10/DB filed by the prosecution before the trial court, refers to provisions of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. As per the prosecution version, the explosive substance purportedly PETN was recovered only at about 9:15 PM after arrest of appellant Luthfur Rehman. Additional evidence was led in the High Court and the original Daily Diary was produced, photocopies of the DD Entries 14 and 15 were exhibited as Ex.PW10/CA and Ex.PW10/CB. The original DD Entry Nos. 14 and 15, Ex.PW10/CA and Ex.PW10/CB, do not ascribe and refer to the sections/provisions of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. ACP Sanjeev Kumar Yadav (PW10), when confronted with the aforesaid discrepancy in his cross-examination in the trial court had attributed and claimed that this was a typographical error. It can be argued that Ex.PW10/DA and Ex.PW10/DB were not the true and correct copies of the original entries as recorded in the Daily Diary Register. To rule out the said possibility of tampering or interpolation, we had examined the original register. The said register was also examined by the advocates for the appellants. There was no sign and indication of such nature. However, it does appear to be strange and is incomprehensible why the typed "true copies", duly exhibited before the trial court as Ex.PW10/DA and Ex.PW10/DB, were not the true and correct copies of the original DD entries. Such errors and lapses reflect and create doubt and in a way, support the contention that the DD entries were recorded as per their convenience. Moreover, in the present case, the person who had recorded the DD entries has not deposed as a prosecution witness and the person in-charge for recording the said entries, i.e. Amrik Singh (PW12) has stated that he had not recorded the said DD entries in his own handwriting, though he admits that DD Entry Nos.13 and 16 recorded at 4 p.m. and 7.35 p.m., respectively, were in his handwriting.