Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16.9. However, when the testimony of this witness is read together with the testimony of another public witness i.e. PW-4 Mohd. Samir Alam, then explanation of the aforesaid anomaly comes forth. PW-4 Mohd. Samir Alam in his State Vs Akbar @ Ganja FIR No.319/2017 PS Moti Nagar U/s 302/34 IPC cross examination stated "I know accused Akbar @ Ganja as he resides in same locality where I reside. I know him for last 2-3 years." Thus, PW-4 knew accused Akbar @ Ganja for 2-3 years prior to the date of incident and he also knew his address as the accused was residing in the same locality where PW-4 was residing. As stated earlier PW-14 and PW-16 have stated in their testimony that they found both the eye witnesses present at the hospital when they reached there, which shows that the two witnesses came in contact with each other at the hospital before their statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer and therefore possibility of having obtained the knowledge regarding the father's name and address of accused by PW-1 from PW-4, can not be ruled out and the said possibility explains as to how the father's name and residential address of the accused is mentioned in statement under Section 161 Cr. P.C. of PW-1. 16.10. Another interesting fact in the testimony of PW-1 is that the witness did not call the police or the family member of the deceased, nor he took the victim to the hospital, despite the fact that the deceased is a co- neighbourer and a distant nephew of PW-1. However, the said fact is also explained by the witness in his testimony, as, he stated that when he saw blood on the body of deceased and his condition, he became perplexed and ran away from the spot, upon which nothing contradictory has come-forth in the cross examination. In the cross State Vs Akbar @ Ganja FIR No.319/2017 PS Moti Nagar U/s 302/34 IPC examination, witness again stated that "I had immediately ran away from the spot after the incident. Firstly, I had returned to the spot of occurrence after sometime and thereafter I went to the hospital. When I returned to the spot after about 30 minutes, Niyaz was sill lying there and police zypsy had arrived." Thus, the witness deposed that he ran away from the spot after seeing the incident and reason for the same has already been explained in his examination in chief, when he stated that he got perplexed upon seeing the blood and condition of Niyaz. 16.11. It may be noted that the house of the said witness is just 10-15 paces from the spot where the incident took place and therefore the possibility of his having run to his home upon seeing the incident and thereafter coming back upon arrival of the police does not render the case of the prosecution weak.

16.14. It is interesting to note that both PW-1 and PW-4 were given suggestion that they were making false statement against accused as they were having prior enmity with him and that the deceased was also having prior enmity with the accused. However, interestingly, the accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. did not say that he had previous enmity with the deceased or with any of the said two witnesses and he has also not disclose the reason of said previous enmity. Further, no specific question with respect to the reason for such previous enmity is put to any of these two public witnesses in their cross examination. As per the accused the entire State Vs Akbar @ Ganja FIR No.319/2017 PS Moti Nagar U/s 302/34 IPC incident took place between the CCL and the deceased and the witnesses are "false and interested witnesses"1, who deposed against him as a revenge, since the CCL could not be given punishment. The said reasoning is contrary to the suggestions given to the said witnesses and is unacceptable because there is no reason for the said two witnesses to depose falsely, only because CCL could not be given harsh punishment. The said two witnesses would not unnecessarily and without any previous enmity falsely implicate the accused, who claims not to be present at the spot. It is interesting to note that while answering question No.59 in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has stated that he was not even present at the spot, but in the same answer he has also stated that entire incident took place between the CCL and the deceased without explaining as to how he obtained the knowledge of the said fact, if he was not actually present at the spot. Therefore, the suggestions for falsely testifying against the accused, given to PW-1 and PW-4 do not reflect in the reasons given by the accused in answer to the question as to why the PWs deposed against him .