Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"The learned Additional Sessions Judge was certainly not entitled to allow his view or observation to take the place of evidence because such view or observation of his could not be tested by cross-examination and the accused would certainly not be in a position to furnish any explanation in regard to the same."

Thus both on principle as also on the authority of cases the reasoning adopted by the Additional Sessions Judge had no validity in law and the learned Deputy Government Advocate found it difficult to support the reasoning of the Additional Sessions Judge. This ground relied upon by the Additional Sessions Judge being not available a question arises whether there can be any other good and cogent ground for preferring one set of the contradictory statements of the prosecution witnesses to the other set of statements. The learned Deputy Government Advocate suggested that the statement at the investigating stage might have been on account of either slip of tongue on the part of the witnesses or on account of slip of pen on the part of the investigating officer who recorded the statements.: The first suggestion of the learned Deputy Government Advocate has no basis. The witnesses made no effort to put forward such an explanation. When faced with their earlier contradictory statements, they merely made statement to the effect that they had never made such statements at the investigating stage. They had no courage to suggest that in making the earlier statements they had made some mistake on account of slip of tongue. Similarly, the Station House Officer, who recorded the statements. had clearly stated that he recorded the statements as were made by the witnesses before him and he was not examined as to the possibility of there being an error in the statements on account of slip of pen. It has been noticed in several cases that the witnesses make no effort to explain the various contradictory statements and come forward with mere statements to the effect that earlier statements either at the investigating stage or even at the committing stage had not been made by them. I desire it to be noted by the agencies incharge of the prosecution and the prosecution witnesses interested in the punishment of wrongs and the prosecution of the accused, particularly the private complainants, that contradictory statements at the various stages of the case, namely, investigation stage, committal stage and trial stage, not only affect their reliability but also introduce serious difficulties in the way of the Judges in arriving at the truth and it is imperative that the witnesses should not make contradictory statements deliberately. It may also be added that if the contradictory statements are not explained in a reasonable manner and appear to have been made deliberately and motivated by improper ulterior considerations, the witnesses run the risk of getting their statements completely discredited. It is high time that the witnesses should realise that they play an important role in achieving a purer and proper administration of criminal justice and that there are indeed limitations on the capacity of the Judges to separate the truth from falsehood. Naturally, deliberate falsehood on their part should be and will be seriously viewed. In the present case, I do not find any reasonable explanation for the varying versions given by the prosecution witnesses at the investigation stage and at the trial stage. It appears to me that the prosecution at a later stage thought it proper to impute serious part to the junior and younger member of the family and thus came forward with the changed version. In these circumstances, considering the contradictory statements at the two stages, I do not feel safe in arriving at a conclusion that Jiwaram was armed with a spear and inflicted injuries with the spear on the deceased. The liability of Jiwaram, therefore, even under Section 324, Indian Penal Code, also is not established,

10. I have given due consideration to the argument advanced by Mr. Chatterji. It no doubt possesses some kind of attractiveness but on the whole, I am unable to accept the contention considering the facts and the circumstances of the present case. The position properly analysed in the present case is this. At the investigating stage the prosecution case was that the accused Jiwaram was one of the assailants and that he was accompanied by his old father Roop Singh and by his wife Mst. Bhudevi. At that stage, the case was that the accused Jiwaram was armed with a lathi and used the lathi during the incident. At the trial stage also the case is that Jiwaram was one of the assailants and accompanied by his old father and his wife. The changed version at the trial stage is that instead of being armed with a lathi he was armed with a spear and used spear both from the sharp side as also from the blunt side. Now, so far as the participation of Jiwaram in the assault is concerned, the two statements agree. The only improvement is with regard to the use of the weopan and as indicated earlier it appears that the complainant desired to impute serious part to the junior and younger member of. the family.