Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3) caught hold at the spot. But in the cross-examination by APP, he improved the statement, stating that he did not remember if A-1 or A-3 fled the spot. The counsel further challenged the recovery of knife. PW- 19 SI Dharambir Singh in the examination-in-chief, stated that it had been recovered at the instance of A-1, however, in the cross-examination by APP with the permission of the Court, he changed his version and stated that it was recovered at the instance of A-2. The recovery was also challenged for not joining independent public witness. Since nothing incriminating was found on the knife such as the blood of the accused or deceased, the recovery was of no consequence. The counsel further pleaded that even if the prosecution case is taken at its face value, Section 302 IPC was not attracted. The stabbing incident took place suddenly without pre-planning or premeditation and the accused, in a fit of rage stabbed the deceased when he, without any cogent reason denied to sell 'namkeen' to them, thus annoying them. The counsel further alleged that slap given by the deceased triggered the situation ruling out 'intention' to murder the deceased.

"further cross-examination deferred as it appears to me that the witness is either not understanding the questions put to him or is scared."

PW-2 appeared after seven months on 14.09.2004 pursuant to issuance of bailable warrants, and reiterated about the apprehension of the two accused by him. He further stated that A-2 had informed him why his brother was stabbed. The analysis of the PW-2's testimony reveals that material facts asserted by the witness earlier recorded remained unchallenged in the cross. In response to which question, PW-2 changed his version is not understandable because he was not confronted with his earlier statement made on 11.02.2004. Neither the Trial Court nor APP sought clarification from him about which of his statement/ version was true.