Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

26. In cross-examination, he accepts that he went on motorcycle by tar road which is abutting block no. 351, while block no. 349 was slightly away from the tar road. He had been to Bhadrutola in connection with these two lands. Owner of these lands was not with him and he was alone. He could not say whether incidence occurred in southern portion of block no. 340. He saw the incident when he was on tar road and immediately added that, that he saw it from block no. 351. He saw Sunita near house of Ghanshyam Uike. Ganesh was made to fall about 50 away from muth on field side. He states that police recorded his statement on next day i.e., 13.8.2000. He did inform police that he saw Gosai 40 feet behind Ganesh and could not explain why this fact did not appear in his statement. He denied that he saw Gosai coming hurriedly from Bandhi side and Sunita followed Gosai. Portion mark "A" in his police statement was deposed to be incorrect recording. This portion is proved through PW-7 Bhaiyalal. He denied that because of fear, he did not go nearer and watched attack from distance of about 100 meters. Assault occurred at two places. First assault was at 40 feet from the spot where later assault took place. He denied that first assault was with sword.

29. This panchanama does not show any tar road or tire road and it does not also bring on record any foot way allegedly used by PW-1 Sunita claimed to be on foot-way and saw incident when she was on kachha murum road but, the prosecution failed to bring on record any such way or road. Spot Panchanama does not show house of Mulchand or then fields of deceased. The tamarind tree where Sunita saw her father standing, is also not shown. PW-3 Gosai states that Ganesh came from his back and crossed him on tar road. Thus, both of them were on tar road only. No tar road or metal murum road passes abutting the field of Homendra and as such, PW-3 Gosai could not have gone to or in field of Homendra with bullocks, if he was on this road. Similarly, Ganesh riding a bicycle on road need not apeal172.04 have entered the field either of Maniram or Homendra. The unproved map drawn by tracer shows a way between the field of Maniram and Homendra. This map only shows the dead body and house of Uike.

roughly from this road.

30. PW-2 Ashok was going on motorcycle on this tar road. If he saw the incidence from tar road, grazing ground lay between him and spot. He also shifts himself to field survey no. 351, but, it is not shown in the maps. As per PW-3 Gosai, village was on Southern side i.e., after this tar road. Hence, even if one presumes that Gosai was coming from this kuchha road with bullocks, Ganesh could not have crossed him on tar or tire road. No tar or tire road crosses this kuchha way and this kuchha way must be emerging on East-West tar road.

32. Ganesh, after he fell from bicycle may have left the road and entered the fields to evade the attack but, his bicycle ought to have been either on kuchha road or tar road. No other bicycle was found on spot though at least 4 bicycles are used by the accused, as per PW1 Sunita. PW-1 does not expressly say that accuse no. 2 Nilkanth was riding any bicycle. She only points out occupants of three bicycles. Thus, presence of convicted accused no. 2 Nilkanth at spot is itself rendered doubtful. Similarly all witnesses state that accused no.5 Prabhudayal took out a sword from gunny bag and gave it to accused Nilkantha, who inflicted its blows on Ganesh. As per PW1, this gunny bag of 50 Kg. capacity was carried by accused no.6 Dindayal on his bicycle. According to PW-2 Ashok, gunny bag was of 100 Kg. capacity and he also saw it on spot. PW-7 Bhaiyalal could not recover any gunny bag. Contradictions about number of bicycles, size of gunny bag, its absence or absence of any bicycle allegedly used by the accused; all cast a serious doubt on the entire prosecution version. Omission to bring on record all relevant reference points like apeal172.04 house of Mulchand, house of Prabhudayal, direction or location of fields of Gosai, alleged foot way, position of tar road or metal murum road, tamarind tree through proper panchanama or map, all enure to the benefit of accused. We are therefore not commenting upon the distances thereof from the spot of occurrence as deposed by PW-1 Sunita or PW-3 Gosai.