Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

c). On 01.03.2011 at about 1.00P.M the C.W.1 came out side from the flat and at that time the accused no.1 and 2 came along with two persons and picked up quarrel with C.W.1, abused C.W.1 in filthy language. The accused no.1 and 2 criminally intimidated to the life of C.W.1 forcing him to withdraw the complaints lodged against accused no.1 and 2.

d). At that time the accused no.1 suddenly sprayed chilly powder and some poison on the eyes and nose. As a result of which the C.W.1 sustained burning sensation and accused no.1 and 2 assulted the office staff of the C.W.1 by name Ranjith Kumar (C.W.2).

21. Further I would like to the mention that according to the case of the prosecution C.W.2 and 3 personally witnessed the incident. It is clear that according to the case of the prosecution C.W.2 came to rescue of C.W.1 and at that time the accused no.1 assulted C.W.2.
22. Now the prime question which arises before court is whether these material aspects reflects in the evidence placed on record? On close scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.1 it is clear that at the time of incident the accused no.1 picked up quarrel with C.W.1 and sprayed pepper spray on the face of C.W.1 and other persons assaulted C.W.1.
23. The evidence placed on record as to taking treatment by C.W.1 in the hospital is not corroborating with the case of prosecution and evidence of P.W.1 and 2 is contrary with each other. This aspect creates a serious doubt.
24. According to the case of the prosecution C.W.2- Ranjith Kumar and C.W.3-Mahesh Kumar are eye witnesses to the incident. During cross examination of P.W.1 specific suggestion was posed to the P.W.1 as to mention of presence of C.W.2 and 3 in the complaint, for this P.W.1 in the cross examination dated 18.09.2019 explained that at the time of incident C.W.2 and 3 were waiting for him near the car and for this reason he did not mention the presence of C.W.2 and 3 in the complaint. This explanation of the P.W.1 in the cross examination clearly indicates that C.W.2 and 3 were not present at the time of incident and they did not witness the incident. This aspect in turn falsifies the case of prosecution that C.W.2 went to rescue of C.W.1 and accused persons assulted C.W.2 also.
25. Apart from this the P.W.4 (C.W.3) in his evidence deposed that he rushed to the spot after the incident and C.W.1 informed him that accused no.1 and 2 picked up quarrel with C.W.1 and assulted C.W.2 with spray. The say of P.W.4 falsifies the case of the prosecution that P.W.4 personally witnessed the incident. This witness is treated as hostile witness. During cross examination made by learned Sr.Asst. Public Prosecutor this witness admitted that he personally witnessed the incident. Further during cross examination on behalf of accused, he specifically explained that he did not personally witness the incident. In the cross examination made on behalf of accused, it is elicited from the mouth of P.W.4 that this witness was also tenant along with C.W.1 in the house of accused 1 and 2. It is crystal clear that this witness is also having some enmity with accused persons. It is also case of the accused that this P.W.4 also co-accused in criminal case against C.W.1. The P.W.4 in the cross examination admitted that he is not given statement before I.O relating to this case, but C.W.1 has given statement. On close scrutiny of the evidence P.W.4 it is clear that the P.W.4 did not support the case of the prosecution. On the other hand the evidence of P.W.4 reveals that case of the prosecution is false. This circumstance leads to presumption that I.O did not record the statement of this witness U/Sec.161 Cr.P.C as per say of the witness. Further this court observed that in the Ex.P.1 complaint itself. C.W.1 mentioned that C.W.2 Ranjith is his office staff. No doubt C.W.2 is also an interested witness. C.W.2 is not secured by the prosecution even after giving sufficient opportunities. As I have above stated the P.W.1 admitted that this C.W.2 was not present at the time of incident and this C.W.2 not personally witnessed the incident.