Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11 Kishan Pal and PW-12 Suresh have failed to identify the accused Laik Ahmed before the Court on various grounds.

25. PW Asha Devi, Sampat admitted during their cross- FIR No. 380/2005, PS-Sarita Vihar State Vs Shyam Kumar & Anr. Page no. 18 of 21 examination that the RTV in which they were travelling was packed to its full capacity and failed to identify the accused.

26. PW Kishan Pal, Sampat and Jamuna deposed that their RTV had hit another RTV while the witness Suresh deposed contrary and stated that their RTV hit the Patri and turned turtle. This contradiction is material but has not been explained by the Prosecution. Further, site plan and Motor Vehicle Inspection Reports of both the vehicles have been carefully perused. If both the vehicles had indeed collided with each other as deposed by witnesses Kishan Pal, Sampat and Jamuna, then the vehicle bearing no. DL-1VA-0639 driven by accused Laik Ahmad should have suffered some consequential damage as an impact of collision. The Motor Vehicle Inspection report of vehicle bearing no. DL-1VA-0639 driven by accused Laik Ahmad shows no damage at all. Thus, it raises another serious doubt in the story of the Prosecution and also supports the defence of the accused that RTV had already turned turtle and was not hit by his RTV. On the other hand the other vehicle bearing no. DL-1VA-3314 in which all the injured were travelling shows substantial damage FIR No. 380/2005, PS-Sarita Vihar State Vs Shyam Kumar & Anr. Page no. 19 of 21 which corroborates the testimony of PW Suresh that the vehicle may have hit the Patri and turned turtle.