Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. The prosecution has examined the complainant P.W. 2 Ramaben Babubhai at Exh.21 who has been declared hostile. It is true that the evidence of the hostile witness cannot be outrightly thrown away. The court can appreciate the material available from such witnesses either in support of the prosecution or in support of the case of the accused. In view of this settled principle, the evidence of P.W. 2 Ramaben Exh.21 is required to be appreciated.

13. The complainant P.W. 2 Ramaben Exh.21 has time and again changed her version. Initially, this witness supported the prosecution case. However, in the cross-examination, this witness deviated from her original version and supported the defence. Thereafter, the court put a straight question and in reply to that question, this witness admitted that the appellant inflicted blow to deceased Khimiben. Thereafter, the prosecution gave application exh.42 to permit the prosecution to recall the witnesses. Pursuant to that, this witnesses was cross-examined by the learned A.P.P. wherein again this witness admitted that in the complaint she had stated the facts of the incident.

14. P.W. 2 Ramaben Exh. 21 was again cross-examined by the defence witness wherein again this witness changed her version and stated that she did not file the complaint and the complaint was not written in her presence. Thereafter, this witness stated that she had dictated the complaint but she did not know whether the complaint was read over to her and her thumb impression was obtained. Learned advocate Mr. Lakhani appearing for Mr. Kedar G. Dave for the appellant submitted that the P.W. 2 Ramaben is an illiterate lady and hails from economically backward strata of the society and she may not be fully aware about the consequences of her deposition and therefore her deposition cannot be relied on.

17. It is to be noted that P.W. 2 Ramaben Exh.21 had time and again changed her version and therefore she was declared hostile.

18. It appears from the earlier part of evidence of this witness P.W. 2 Ramaben Exh. 21 that she has stated that after the incident the injured fell down inside the shop and became unconscious. But subsequently, she changed her version and stated that the appellant had inflicted injuries to the victim. Thereafter, when she was cross-examined by the defence advocate, she has again changed her version. In view of this, this witness has time and again changed her oral version and it is not safe to rely upon her evidence for basing conviction of the appellant.

23. It is obvious that P.W. 2 Ramaben Exh.21 being sister-in-law (Nanand i.e.husband's sister) of victim she has tried to see that she supports the prosecution case. In view of this relation, without there being evidence of any independent witness, it would not be safe to rely upon the evidence of this witness more so when there is no medical evidence to support the injuries caused to the deceased with the weapon recovered from the appellant.

24. The prosecution has also examined P.W. 3 Maniben Harukhbhai at Exh.23. This witness has also been declared hostile and she has time and again changed her version. In the initial part of her version, this witness supported the prosecution case. But thereafter she has deviated from the prosecution case and supported the defence and hence she was been declared hostile. This witness in her deposition stated that when she along with deceased was standing in the shop the appellant along with his father co-accused Somabhai came and co-accused Soma caught hold of Khimiben and the appellant inflicted injuries. This version is contradictory to the oral version given by the complainant P.W. 2 Ramaben Exh. 21 as the said witness has not deposed about the presence of the co-accused Somabhai. Furthermore, this witness has stated that the incident took place in the shop, whereas other evidence on record indicates that the incident took place in the market. In view of this discrepancy in the evidence, it would be unsafe to rely upon the evidence of this witness.