Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This would clearly show that the witness is prepared to change his version at any time and he has ho regard for truth. In the chief examination he had stated that on the 16th of July, 1990 at about 2115 hrs. he received a phone call from Mr. J.S. Bakshi P.W. 4 (Commandant). He had met P.W. 9 in the night. According to him, he knew that P.W. 9 had gone to the residence of the petitioner. But being a Dy. Commandant he would candidly say :

"I came to know that Const. Bhavesh Kumar Jha was found absent during the evening roll-call, which used to be taken around 1900 hrs. 1 do not know what time he returned from the residence of the accused."

Therefore, the witness is categoric in his statement that it was the father who paid Rs. 4,100/- to the petitioner but the case of the prosecution is totally different. The witness would change his version and would say:

"It is incorrect to suggest that I had told Mr. J.S. Bakshi that I paid the amount of Rs. 5,000/- to the accused personally and Rs. 1,000/ - was paid to the accused through some Constable of Adm. Wing."

He would admit:

"It is correct that I had not stated at the time of ROE that when I met the accused at his house for the first time, the accused had demanded Rs. 5,000/- from me i.e. half the amount, for getting me a job."