Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

36. However, in her cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, PW-2 took a summersault and completely changed her version. In her cross-examination, PW-2 deposed that her statement was not recorded by the police in this case at any time. She stated that she came to know for the first time, on the day when her sister died, that her sister had married with accused Satender Gautam. She further stated that her mother came to know about her sister getting married with accused Satender Gautam in the hospital. She added that she (her mother) came to know about these facts of her own and she was aware before she State Vs. Satender Gautam could share these facts with her. During her further cross- examination, she once again reiterated that her deceased sister had never shared with her before her death even on telephone that she had got married to accused Satender Gautam. She stated that she had not made any statement to the police that her sister and Satender Gautam had got married in January, 2010 and in September, 2010, they got their marriage registered at Khurja, Distt. Bulanshahar. She once again clarified that her statement made before the court with regard to the fact that she came to know about the fact of marriage of her sister with Satender Gautam on the day when she died, is correct.

50. PW-12 was cross-examined by the Ld. Defence counsel and during her cross-examination, PW-12 again changed her stand and admitted that the marriage between the accused and the deceased was a love marriage and both were living peacefully. She stated that in her presence, the accused did not make any demand of money from the deceased. Taking a summersault in her cross-examination, PW-12 admitted the suggestion of the Ld. Defence counsel that the deceased never told her that accused used to demand money from her and her family. She stated that the police did not record her statement. On PW-12 having changed her version in her cross-examination by Ld. Defence counsel, Ld. Addl. PP for the State sought permission of the court to re-examine PW-12, however, the said permission was declined by my Ld. Predecessor.

51. PW-12 Ms. Sneha has though claimed that a day prior to the death of deceased Ms. Poonam, there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased and the accused was under

the influence of liquor. She has, however, not claimed that the reason of the said quarrel was on account of demand of dowry/money. In fact, even as per PW-12, she thought that it was a normal quarrel between a husband and a wife.
State Vs. Satender Gautam

52. Further, PW-12 Ms. Sneha in her examination in chief, did not level any allegations of deceased Poonam having told her about the accused making any demand of money from her or her family. However, on being cross-examined by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, she admitted the suggestion that Poonam told her that the accused used to tell her to bring money from her family members and that she was being harassed, thereby completely changing her version. Furthermore, while being cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel, she once again changed her version and admitted the suggestion of Ld. Defence counsel that deceased never told her that the accused used to demand money from her and her family. PW 12 has thus oscillated and vacillated during the course of her examination in chief, cross examination by Ld APP for the state and cross examination by the accused. In view of the above, it is clear that PW-12 Ms. Sneha has changed her version thrice and therefore, she cannot be termed as a sterling witness. The law as to when a witness can be called a sterling witness is well settled and it would be pertinent here to refer to the settled proposition of law on the point.

56. PW12 in the present case has changed her version at the drop of a hat on every possible stage, rendering her testimony unworthy of any credence or reliability and she cannot be held to be sterling witness by any stretch of imagination and her testimony does not inspire confidence.

57. There is another aspect of the matter. There are contradictions inter-se the testimonies of PW1 Smt. Kamlesh State Vs. Satender Gautam Sharma, PW2 Ms. Preeti Sharma and PW3 Sh. Mukesh Kumar.