Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

35. In cross-examination, he stated that he had informed the police that fight was going on, but could not explain as to why this fact was not mentioned in his police statement. He also stated that he had not informed to the police that the appellants were going towards their house, but could not explain as to how such fact was mentioned in his police statement. He also could not explain as to why the fact that some was armed with Ballam and some were having sword or Lathi is not mentioned in his police statement, Ex. D.3. He also stated that he had informed the police that when he reached on the spot, the Appellants were standing there, but could not explain as to why such fact was not mentioned in his police statement, Ex. D.3. The cross-examination of this witness could not be completed as the Court overs were over, and accordingly, he was further cross-examined on the next day. In further cross-examination, he took somersault and admitted that while coming back from his field, the place of incident doesnot fall in the way. He further stated that when he reached on the spot, the injured persons were lying unconscious. He met with Santosh after 15 days of incident. He further stated that whatever was stated by him on the previous day, was on the instructions of the public prosecutor. He further stated that since, he was tutored, therefore, he had alleged against the Appellants. Accordingly, this witness was re-examined by the public prosecutor. He admitted that yesterday, he had come to Court at 11 A.M. and was sleeping all the time on the platform. He entered inside the Court room, only when he was called by the Peon of the Court. He further admitted that neither he has seen the office of public prosecutor nor he can identify public prosecutor. He further stated that whatever was stated by him on the previous day was not correct. He denied that he did not have a talk with the Appellants. He admitted that today also, he had a talk with the Appellants. However, denied that because of compromise, he has changed his version in their favor. He admitted that Goverdhan had sustained injuries. This witness was further cross-examined by the Court and this witness admitted that he was not tutored by the public prosecutor. He also stated that yesterday he was upset.

71. In the Court evidence, this witness had slightly changed his version and said that when he reached on the spot, he saw that fight was going on and the accused persons were there with weapons. However, in his police statement, Ex. D.3, he had stated that when he reached on the spot, he saw that injured persons were lying on the ground whereas the appellants Halkai @ Ganeshram, Ramsewak, Dayaram, Karan Singh, Bhagwandas, Dhaniram, Ramdas etc who were armed with Ballam, Sword, Lathi were going towards their house and when this witness lit the torch, then Halkai @ Ganeshram abused him and said that he is trying to play smart. The omission with regarding to witnessing the fight was confronted from this witness, therefore, omission and contradictions were proved in accordance with the provisions of Section 145 of Cr.P.C. However, his evidence to the effect that the Appellants were on the spot with weapons can be relied upon as the same is in conformity with his previous statement.