Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(b) Secondly, Ext.P19 was issued by A6 acting on Ext.P14 and Ext.P15 affidavits, filed by A2 and A4. However, the charges were framed based on the recommendations of A1 and A3 and tagging A2, A4 and A5 to these recommendations has zero relevance in the context of the crime alleged.
(c) So far as Ext.P14 and Ext.P15 affidavits are concerned, while the deponents of these affidavits viz. A2 and A4 averred that PW14, the husband of A2 had deserted her, PW14, whom the prosecution relies on to prove the charges, deposes that there was a living in arrangement with A2 and he had left her. Even though prosecution has declared PW14 hostile and cross examined him, except suggesting an unsigned 161(3) statement, it has done precious little to establish that the statement which A2 and A4 had made in their respective Ext.P14 and Ext.P15 affidavits are false. At any rate, no charge is framed vis-a-vis Ext.P14 and Ext.P15.