Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

93. Thus, the Court can grant permission to declare a witness hostile, if it comes to a conclusion that either the witness is not speaking the truth or has exhibited hostility to the party who has called him. The basic concept of cross-examination is to elicit truth from the mouth of the witness and that is why, under Section 154 of Evidence Act, the Court has a discretion to declare any witness as In Reference Vs. Ravi @ Toli (CRRFC No. 3/2020) Ravi @ Toli Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No.3007/2020) hostile when it comes to a conclusion that the witness is not telling the truth. In the present case, the prosecution itself did not make a prayer for declaring Mohit Kashyap (P.W. 17) hostile on the ground that he is not speaking the truth, but not having done so, the prosecution cannot say, that the evidence of Mohit Kashyap (P.W. 17) that black slacks was handed over by the appellant/accused on 7-11- 2015, by picking up from the spot should be ignored. On the contrary, the said voluntary disclosure of fact by Mohit Kashyap (P.W. 17) in his cross examination, is nothing short of truth and that is why, black slacks did not come into picture prior to 7-11-2015 or 8-11-2015. Further, if the videography done by the police on 7-11- 2015 is seen, then it is clear that the appellant/accused is not seen picking up and handing over the slacks, 2 coins of 1 Rupee and Steel Ring, but if the videography is seen in the light of the evidence of Mohit Kashyap (P.W. 17) as well as the fresh tyre marks of four wheeler on Kachha Road, then it is clear that the videography which is contained in Folder 3 is nothing but a film whose story was already written and was filmed under the direction of Sanjeev Chouksey (P.W. 31) and not on the disclosure by the appellant/accused.

95. As already pointed out that according to the prosecution itself, the slacks, 2 coins of Rs.1/-, one steel ring were seized on 29-10-

2015. However, from the videography, it is clear that they were shown to have been recovered from an open place which is a Trail, having easy access to general public and since it is a Trail, then it cannot be said that it could not have been noticed by any of the bypasser. Further, in the videography contained in folder "3", it is visible that when the police party was going to the spot with the appellant/accused, then one person had crossed them. Thus, it is In Reference Vs. Ravi @ Toli (CRRFC No. 3/2020) Ravi @ Toli Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No.3007/2020) clear that the trail was being used by local residents. The dead body was recovered on 25-10-2015, whereas the slacks was shown to have been recovered on 29-10-2015 i.e., after 4 days, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion, that in fact the recovery of slacks on 29- 10-2015 was nothing but a story developed by the police. Further, when the police was getting every proceeding videographed, then why the recovery of slacks on 29-10-2015 was not videographed by the police ?

114. There is one more interesting aspect of the matter. The Folder In Reference Vs. Ravi @ Toli (CRRFC No. 3/2020) Ravi @ Toli Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No.3007/2020) No.4 of CD Article 29 is the videography of seizure of cloths of the appellant/accused. This videography starts with Sanjeev Chouksey (P.W. 31) and other persons sitting in a moving jeep along with the appellant/accused. Sanjeev Chouksey (P.W.31) is asking the appellant/accused about the location of his house and accordingly, the appellant/accused guided the police party towards his house. Thus, every attempt was made to show that in fact the police was not aware of the house of the appellant/accused and in fact, it is the appellant/accused, who took the police party to his house. But here, the investigating officer, Sanjeev Chouksey (P.W. 31) committed a serious mistake. As soon as the jeep reached in front of the house/small room of the appellant/accused, one person in black T- shirt with two white horizontal strips is waiting for the jeep. As soon as the jeep stops there, he immediately moves towards the back side of the jeep. A person with red coloured shirt who was sitting along with the appellant/accused on the back seat of the jeep says, "lquhy idMks" and accordingly, the person who was in black T-Shirt and was waiting for the jeep, catch hold the handcuffs of the appellant/accused and goes inside the house of the appellant/accused, from where the appellant/accused picks up the cloths which were kept on the floor. Further, it is clear from the videography, that the house of the appellant/accused was nothing but a small room with kitchen in the same small house. It is clear from the Videography, In Reference Vs. Ravi @ Toli (CRRFC No. 3/2020) Ravi @ Toli Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No.3007/2020) that when the appellant/accused was taken to the said room, then the door of the room was already open. Thus, it is clear that the so- called seizure of Shirt, Pant and Underwear of the appellant/accused was nothing but a farce and was the outcome of a well scripted film, but as Sanjeev Chouksey (P.W. 31) is not a good Director, therefore, he committed material mistakes while getting the proceedings videographed. All the three cloths, i.e., Jeans, Shirt and underwear were kept together on the floor. Thus, it is clear that the cloths were not kept by him in hidden condition. Further, after committing murder of the deceased at Vidisha, why the appellant/accused would bring his cloths to Bhopal? Be that as it may. One thing is important, that according to the prosecution, the colour of the shirt of the appellant was black and similarly, the colour of his pant was black. Surprisingly, the colour of slacks of the deceased was also black. If the entire method of investigation is seen, then it is clear that black colour was not co-incidence, but they were deliberately planted as stains would have been clearly visible on light coloured cloths. Thus, the manner in which one person in civil uniform was waiting for the jeep to arrive and thereafter, he immediately takes charge of the appellant/accused by holding his handcuffs, it is clear that the whole videography done by Sanjeev Chouksey (P.W. 31) was pre-planned and well scripted and but poorly directed film, and committed material mistake, which exposed everything.

126. Non-Examination of Tulsiram has given a deep dent to the prosecution, because the whereabouts of 5 ml of blood of the deceased could have been explained by Tulsiram only.

Whether the Videography of proceedings done by the police which are contained in CD Article 29 is the videography of the In Reference Vs. Ravi @ Toli (CRRFC No. 3/2020) Ravi @ Toli Vs. State of M.P. (Cr.A. No.3007/2020) proceedings or it is an already written script by the investigating officer.