Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
9). Whereas PW-9 has explicitly stated that he did not go to Sonepat and had given permission to the Investigating Officer and the other staff for going to Sonepat for recovery of the child. Const. Devinder (PW-12) has also stated that ACP Pramod Singh Kushwah (PW-9) had gone with them to Sonepat. Whereas HC Paramjeet Singh (PW-18) is silent about the accused persons having gone to Sonepat with the police party. On the other hand, SI Raj Kumar (PW-19) has stated that he and Devinder had gone back to Rajouri Garden and did not go to Sonepat.
19. Similarly, only Praduman Puri (PW-8) has not stated that Lady HC Poonam Tyagi had accompanied them to Sonepat. This is only an omission and not a contradiction. He being an independent witness unknown to the intricacies of the investigation, probably did not name Lady HC Poonam Tyagi accompanying them to Sonepat. It is pertinent that no suggestion was given to this witness in the cross examination if any Lady Const. had accompanied them to Sonepat. The incident had taken place on 26.1.1999. At that time Praduman Puri was a student of 3rd year B.A. in Shivaji College, may be that he did not feel the importance of disclosing the presence of a Lady HC at the railway station and her accompanying them to Sonepat. Meticulous description of the situation, place, number of persons present, gender, etc. cannot be expected from an independent witness who otherwise is truthful. We do not find this omission damaging the prosecution case.
20. ACP Pramod Singh Kushwah (PW-9) did reach Old Delhi railway station, gave permission to SI Sanjay Kumar for going out of station to Sonepat, did not accompany the raiding party to Sonepat. The only witness for the prosecution who has spoken about ACP accompanying them to Sonepat is Const. Devinder (PW-12) and Lady HC Poonam Tyagi (PW-11) and Gurdip Singh (PW-7).
21. As already discussed above, small discrepancies which have crept in the cross examination of Gurdip Singh (PW-7), Const. Devinder (PW-12) are nothing but a confusion in their mind while recollecting the names of the persons who had gone to Sonepat. Their testimony when read as a whole is credible. Small inconsistencies in their cross examination, therefore, does not jeopardize the prosecution case.
29. Another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the prosecution witnesses have given different time of their departure from Delhi to Sonepat and also the time spent by the police party at Sonepat in the house of accused Navin. True that, there are some discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses regarding the time they left Delhi for Sonepat and also the time spent by the police party and persons accompanying the police at Sonepat. However, these contradictions are minor in nature. Graphical accuracy of the time, when the party left Delhi, the time when the party reached Sonepat and the time spent in the investigation of the case at Sonepat is not expected from any of the witnesses, especially when they were all pre-engaged in the investigation of the case and were concerned about the recovery of the child and after the recovery, in the investigation of the case. These discrepancies are bound to occur in a case like this where a minor child of 7 years old was kidnapped and was confined for about three days before he got recovered.