Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

29. In his cross-examination, DW-2 stated that neither he nor Gurlal made any complaint to the police about the motorcycle of A-2 being taken by some police officials. He also did not complain to the police after coming to know from his father and brother that A-2 had been picked up by the police. He denied the suggestion that he was falsely deposing at the instance of A-2.

30. The third defence witness was Mr. S.K. Jain, Dy. Director, CFSL, Chandigarh (DW-3). DW-3 clarified that although in reply to the RTI application of A-1 (Ex. DW-3/B), it had been stated that no official from the CFSL, Chandigarh had attended the trial Court, he stated that he had appeared in the trial Court on 12th January 2009 to record the voice sample. He also brought an attested copy of the office movement register showing his movement from Chandigarh to Delhi (Ex. DW-3/E). In his cross-examination by learned counsel for A-1, DW-3 stated that he had been authorised and directed by the CFSL, Chandigarh to appear in the learned trial Court on 12th January 2009.

(vii) Dr. S.K. Jain, Dy. Dir. (DW-3) had come to the Court on 12th January 2009 to record the voice sample of A-1 and A-2 but they had refused. An adverse inference, therefore, was drawn against them. The allegation that the signatures of A-1 on various documents was forged was false as the evidence of the handwriting expert did not conclusively prove that the signatures of A-1 were forged. There was no merit in the contention that the mobile phones were planted on A-1 and A-2. Right from the supply to them of the chargesheet and documents, they were taking the plea that no contraband had been recovered them. They did not take the plea that no mobile phone had been recovered from them, although the recovery memos were duly supplied to them with the chargesheet.