Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

23.  Further suggestion given to the witness by A­1 also show that a minor scuffle had taken place between PW 1 and A­1 which implies that  even  the  defence  does  not  deny  presence  of  A­1 on  the  spot. Likewise, the suggestion  of A­2 given to PW 1   that he remained neutral during the incident also establishes that A­2 was present on the spot. However, mere presence on the spot will not suffice. 

24.  There   is   no   support   forth   coming   to   the   prosecution   in   the testimonies   of   PWs   2,   3   &   4.   They   are   completely   hostile   to   the prosecution except for the fact that all of them were present on the spot where the accused persons were also present and eating dinner in their   car.   They   have   denied   that   the   police   ever   recorded   their statements.   These   are   unsigned   statements   and   the   same   were confronted to the witness. They claim in their chief examination itself that there was only a minor scuffle and the FIR was got registered in the heat of passion only and that the minor dispute has been settled amongst  the accused persons and the witnesses.  For the aforesaid reasons, the Court can not rely on the testimonies of PWs 2 to 4 State  Vs. Nitesh Yadav Etc.                                        FIR 438/14 (57217/2016)    leaving behind the testimony of PW1/complainant only.