Skip to main content
Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law
Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
29. It was also argued that Ext. PW2/A complaint of PW2
has been tampered with. According to the learned Senior Counsel
for the appellant/accused, the testimony of PW2 shows that that
the latter is unaware of the contents of Ext. PW2/A complaint
because while examined he deposed that he had not signed Ext.
PW2/A complaint after reading the same and that the complaint
had not been lodged in the presence of PW8. PW2 claimed that he
had in fact mentioned the name of Paltu Ram in his complaint.
PW2 also claimed that the police had obtained his signature on
blank papers. Therefore, referring to this part of the testimony of
PW2, the argument advanced is that that it is a clear case of
tampering of Ext. PW2/A complaint, which aspect alone is
sufficient to throw out the entire prosecution case. This argument
also at first blush appeared quite appealing. But a closer scrutiny of
the materials on record show that the argument is also not correct.
PW8, the independent panch witness, deposed that the complaint
of PW2, that is, Ext. PW2/A had been recorded by PW9 in his
presence, at which time PW2 was also present. PW8 also deposed
that he had affixed his signature in Ext. PW2/A complaint and
PW8, while in the box, identified his signature at point 'B' in Ext.
PW2/A complaint. This aspect of the testimony is corroborated by
the testimony of PW9, the TLO, deposed that on 03.04.2000, he
had recorded Ext.PW2/A complaint of PW2 in the presence of
PW8. PW9 also deposed that the complaint was regarding the
demand of bribe of ₹300/- by HC Sumer Singh (the accused) of
Patel Nagar police station for returning the RC of the stolen
motorcycle of PW2. The testimony of PW8 and PW9 on these
aspects has not been discredited in any manner and, therefore, I
find no reasons to disbelieve them. Their testimony will also show
that PW2 was clearly resiling from his version in Ext. PW2/A
complaint and therefore, the trial court was quite justified in
initiating proceedings under Section 344 Cr.P.C against him.