Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

9. This brings to determine the crucial question as to who caused the grievous injuries to the Gevinath?

10. On close scrutiny of the statement of Gevinath (PW-1), I find that this witness did not inspire confidence. There are material discrepancies in his evidence in case diary statement as well as in Rojnamcha Sanha report details.

Motive not proved

11. It is mentioned that there was enmity between complainant Gevinath (PW-1) and Tulsa Singh, father of the accused persons. Cause of enmity is also mentioned that there was dispute regarding the grazing of grass between the both parties. But, during examination in chief Gevinath (PW-1) did not utter a single word about this enmity. Despite above mentioned facts of enmity in Rojnamcha Sanha, Gevinath (PW-1) denied this fact that he is in inimical terms with accused persons or their father Tulsa Singh. Gevinath (PW-1) also denied the suggestions that he stated this fact during the report that he has old enmity with the accused persons. He also denied this suggestion that in Revenue Court Tehsil Chitrang, there is pendency of a case between accused persons and him related with Section 107 / 116 of Criminal Procedure Code. This contradiction goes to the root cause of motive of incident which is specifically mentioned in basic prosecution documents, therefore, this major contradiction cannot be ignored which is fatal also.

Delayed First Information Report

12. It is also pertinent to mention here that incident took place on 17.08.1986 in between morning 8:00 to 11:00 a.m. Rojnamcha Sanha report was lodged at Kotwali Sidhi, instead of Police Station Gadwa under which jurisdiction Village Berra of complainant and place of incident situated. Secondly, from place of incident at Village Berra distance of Police Station Gadwa is 13 kms. Therefore, it is clear that after delay of more than 27 hours at Police Station Kotwali Sidhi Rojnamcha Sanha report were lodged on 18.08.86 in the evening at 5:15 p.m.=17:15 hours. Thirdly, after medical examination and X-ray formalities the First Information Report were written at Police Station Gadwa on 5 th day i.e. 22.08.1986 in the night at 20:00 hours.

17. It is also pertinent to mention here that Gevinath (PW-1) has identified only two accused, Baba Singh and Chote Singh but, he did not named the third accused Munna @ Indrajeet Singh. This non- identification is also against the prosecution.

Non-support of other prosecution witnesses

18. As per the admission of Gevinath (PW-1) and facts mentioned in the Rojnamcha Sanha report it was Nandlal (PW-2) who came to first of all for rescue of complainant. During examination in chief when Nandlal (PW-2) did not support the prosecution story he was declared hostile. At this second stage he admitted some facts supporting the case of prosecution but, not as the status of eyewitness but as an hearsay eyewitness. Finally Nandlal (PW-2) during the cross examination, admitted this fact that when he heard cry of Gevinath for help, he went to the spot where he found Gevinath unconscious. He also admitted that he did not see accused persons at the place of the incident. Nandlal (PW-2) also vanished his status of hearsay witness after admitting this fact that it is true that unconscious Gevinath did not told him any fact regarding the incidence.