Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. No doubt there appear to be some discrepancy with regard to mention of time of registration of FIR as 12 Hrs in Ex.PW7/B and PW3 stating about his reaching the office of CBI at 2.00 PM, but this can only be attributed to human error or loss of memory after such a long time. This being very trivial cannot be said to be sufficient to create a dent in the prosecution case.

10. With regard to PW2 and PW5, learned counsel submitted that these witnesses are not reliable being stock witnesses of CBI. Learned counsel pointed out that PW2 stated that he along with PW5 went to CBI office on the written requisition by CBI, but later in his cross-examination stated that PW7, Inspector Anil Kumar Sharma came to their office to take them. This was in fact no discrepancy. It is correct that PW2 earlier joined a raid conducted by CBI and PW5 also joined a raid about 1½ years ago, but that alone was not sufficient to brand them as stock witnesses and discard their testimonies.

15. Learned counsel also pointed out that the testimony of PW5, who had spoken about the recovery of the tainted notes from the pocket of the accused is at variance from the other witnesses, who had stated about the recovery from the hand of the accused. The statement of PW5 is definitely at variance from the other witnesses, but then the said witness has no where explained as to when the money was put into the pocket of the accused. It is noted that PW5 had categorically stated about having seen the complainant giving the money to the accused. This small variance in the version of PW5 in any case, can not make him either unreliable or to shake the prosecution version that the money was recovered from the left hand of the accused. It is noted that in answer to a question this witness stated that he did not remember from which hand of the accused the money was recovered. Then he also clearly identified currency notes Ex.P1 to P40 as the same which were recovered from the accused. He also denied the suggestion of learned defence counsel that nothing was demanded, accepted or recovered from the accused in his presence. He maintained that he and one CBI official counted and compared the recovered notes with the numbers already noted in annexure A of Ex.PW2/A. This small discrepancy can be due to oversight or human error.