Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

30. It is clear that hostile declared prosecution witnesses P.R.Rathore (P.W.6) and Raghunath Prasad Parashar (P.W.11) had tried to substantially deviate from prosecution’s version, but evidence of both of these witnesses is not mutually corroborative and is also not supporting the defence version given by the appellant as D.W.6.

31. Raghunath Prasad Parashar (P.W.11) who was at the relevant time working as Sub-Engineer in Water Resources Department at Sagar clearly deposed in para 3 of his examination-in-chief that the bribe notes which were recovered/seized from present accused, their numbers were uttered by him at the time of preparation of preliminary panchnama (Ex.P.9) and numbers of recovered notes were uttered by him at the time of preparation of seizure memo of currency notes (Ex.P.10), but his examination-in-chief after para no.3 remained incomplete on 3.7.2006, because Court’s time was over. On next day in para 5, he clearly deposed that a police constable had put the treated currency notes with powder in complainant’s shirt upper pocket and before him complainant was warned that he should not touch these treated notes before tendering them to be given in bribe. Raghunath Prasad Parashar (P.W.11) deposed that after ringing of the bell from the complainant’s hospital’s chamber, he with other panch witness Rathore and other members of the trap party had entered into the chamber of the complainant, at that time appellant’s pant was hanging on a chair and on asking by Devvrat Mishra (P.W.9), he had taken out the currency notes from the back pocket of appellant’s full-pant. In para 3, Raghunath Prasad Parashar (P.W.11) has clearly deposed that notes were recovered from the accused/appellant but on next day, he modified his deposition, but in para 8, he had deposed that when appellant’s fingers were dipped in prepared solution, then the colour of solution had changed and similarly when his fingers were dipped in solution separately, then colour had also changed. Raghunath Prasad Parashar (P.W.11) clearly admitted in para 15 that at the time of recording of his police statement during investigation, he had not said that appellant’s full-pant was hanging on a chair from which notes were taken out by him. In the same para, he clearly admitted that these facts were stated by him on that day i.e. 4.7.2006 for the first time. In his re-examination in para 24, Raghunath Prasad Parashar (P.W.11) clearly admitted that in his presence, which procedure was being adopted that procedure was recorded and his police statement was recorded as was stated by him, but in next breathe, he changed his version and deposed that he had not given any statement to the police.

32. Prosecution panch witness P.R.Rathore (P.W.6) deposed that on 13.5.2003 each of the two applications submitted by complainant (Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.5) were verified by other panch witness Parashar in his presence and he had also signed regarding verification on each of these applications and in his presence, recorded telephonic conversation’s transcript was prepared, which was in accordance with the recorded conversation in cassette. In his examination-in-chief (para 3), he deposed that when after ringing of bell, he entered into complainant’s hospital's chamber, then a person was present there who was perhaps T.I. or other was counting notes and thereafter currency notes were seized and that person’s hands were washed and in next breathe, he deposed that present person in Court at the time of recording of his evidence is the same person who was counting currency notes, but in next breathe he again changed his version and deposed that when he entered into chamber, then present police officials were counting currency notes. In next breathe, he deposed that the currency notes which were kept on doctor’s table were seized and seizure memo was prepared and at that time appellant’s full-pant was hanging on a chair present there and appellant’s full-pant was also seized. It is significant to mention here that when deposition of any prosecution witness is being recorded in Court, then at that time no any other prosecution witness of the same case could remain present in the Court. It is clear from para 3 of examination-in-chief of P.R.Rathore (P.W.6) that he was continuously changing his version in that para itself. Firstly he deposed that present person in Court means the appellant/accused was counting currency notes, thereafter in next breathe, he deposed that police officials were counting notes. In next breathe, he deposed that the currency notes kept on complainant’s table were seized. Thus, it is clear that like another hostile declared panch witness Raghunath Prasad Parashar (P.W.11) was also continuously modifying his deposition and was not stable on any fact. Thus, it is clear that each of both of the panch witnesses Raghunath Prasad Parashar (P.W.11) and P.R.Rathore (P.W.6) were not ready to reveal the truth and thus they were continuously changing their depositions. Looking to the total depositions of these panch witnesses Raghunath Prasad Parashar (P.W.11) and P.R.Rathore (P.W.6), learned trial Court had ordered and directed in last para no.118 of its judgment to the public prosecutor that a complaint be filed in competent Court against both of these panch witnesses and the Court be intimated. This order was passed by the trial Court on an application filed under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. by the prosecution before it.