Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

18. Both the eye witnesses have been cross-examined at length and the learned Sessions Judge had dealt with their statements exhaustively and in details. Now, there are some glaring features in the testimony of these two witnesses, which cannot be easily ignored or over looked. The first is that the FIR Ex. P 3 was lodged by the eye witness PW 3 Mst. Sukhjeet Kaur. She was examined by the Investigating Officer just after the First Information Report was lodged. Her statement recorded under Section 161, Cr. P.C. is Ex D. 1 Kala Singh (PW 4) was also examined by the police and his statement is Ex. D 2. The Investigating Officer Jiwan Ram (PW 7) has stated that what was deposed to him by these two witnesses was correctly and faithfully reduced into writing in Ex. P 3, Ex D 1 and Ex D 2. Nothing was added or subtracted by him. These three documents, thus, stand proved. Now, in FIR (Ex. P 3) and in her police statement Ex. D-1, she stated that when the accused Shersingh pointed his gun towards her husband Kashmir Singh, Kashmir Singh turned back to run away. Accused Shersingh fired the gun which hit Kashmir Singh on his back. Kashmir Singh fell down then and there on the spot. These portions in Ex. P 3 are Ka. 2 to Ka-3 and Ka-3 to Ka. 4. This portion in Ex. D 1 is Ka to Ka-1 and Ka-1 to Ka-2. This part of the statement in Ex. D 2 of PW 4 Kala Singh is Ka-2 to Ka-3 and Ka 3 to Ka-4. Thus, the version given in the FIR and in the police statements by these two witnesses is that the gun shot hit Kashmirsingh on his back. Injury No. 1, mentioned in the post-mortem report Ex. P 2 was, thus, the entry wound, according to these two witnesses. When the report Ex. P 32 of the Ballistic Expert was received on March 6, 1984, it was realised that injury No. I was not the entry wound but that it Was the exit wound. These two witnesses then changed the version when they were examined during trial on May 23, 1984, and introduced altogether a new improvement that the gun shot bit Kasmir Singh on his chest. This improvement was made with the oblique motive to fit in with the opinion of the Ballistic Expert expressed by him in Ex P 32. When both these witnesses were asked to explain these contradictions, instead of furnishing any explanation they merely denied that they had stated the aforesaid portions in Ex. P 3 or Ex. D 1 or Ex. D 2. This improvement is significant and cannot be lightly brushed aside or ignored from consideration.

19. There was a cogent reason for the two eye witnesses to have stated in Ex. P 3, Ex. D I and Ex. D 2 that the gun shot had hit Kashmir Singh on his back. The post mortem examination was conducted on the spot. In the post-mortem examination report (Ex. P 2), PW 1 Dr. Nayak stated that injury No. 1 was the entry wound. It appears that the FIR (Ex P 3) was prepared and the statements Ex D 1 and Ex. D. 2 were given by these two eye witnesses to fit-in with the opinion of Dr. Nayak (PW 1). But with the opinion of the Ballistic Expert, these two eye witnesses made a departure from their earlier statements Ex P. 3, Ex D. 1 and Ex. D. 2 and substituted altogether another version of the incident that the shot had hit the victim Kashmir Singh on his chest. This substitution and improvement speak heavily against these two eye witnesses and give an impression that they had changed their version from stage to stage as and when the exigencies required, irrespective of the truth. That gives an impression that they had not really seen the incident and stated different versions at different stages, first to fit-in with the medical opinion and then, lateron, to fit in with the opinion of the Ballistic Expert. When the witness changes one version and substitutes it by another version as the exigencies require, the impression is that he is a witness on whom no reliance for any purpose can be placed. The testimony of such a witness fails to inspire confidence.

21 The learned Public Prosecutor and Sardar Kernel Singh made strenuous efforts to persuade us that the shot hit Kashmir Singh on his back was introduced in Ex P 3, Ex. D I and Ex. D 2 by these eye witnesses due to their innocence and low understanding. It was argued that they are rustic villagers and minute observations cannot be expected from them. We should not, therefore, give undue importance to these contradictions. We are unable to subscribe this view. The FIR (Ex. P 3) is not an innocent document. Since in the post mortem examination report (Ex. P 20) it was mentioned that the gun shot injury on the back of Kashmir Singh was the entry wound, this fact was introduced in the FIR Ex P 3 to fit-in with the medical evidence. Subsequently, when it was realised on the receipt of the Ballistic Expert's report Ex. P 32 that injury No. I on the back was the exit wound and not the entry wound, the eye witnesses changed the version and improved their earlier version that the gunshot hit Kashmir Singh on the chest This type of improvement, which changes the main version of the incident, cannot be considered as innocent or innocuous. This substitution relating to gun shot injury amounts to material contradiction within the meaning of Section 162, Cr. P.C. and is an obvious improvement with the avowed and deliberate purpose to fit-in with the evidence of the Ballistic Expert. If the version of a prosecution witness in the Court is inconsistent with his version before the police, reliance and faith cannot be pinned on him and conviction cannot be maintained on such evidence.

26. It is interesting to notice that common, similar and identical mistakes, improvements and changed versions are there in the testimony of the eye witnesses. The unanimity between them in committing the same mistakes, omissions and contradictions, and in making improvements strongly suggests that they are not honest and innocent witnesses. While evaluating the evidence of these two eye witnesses, it should not be forgotten that one of them is the widow and daughter-in-law of the deceased-victims and improvements etc. made by them lead to the irresistible conclusion that they had acted in a concept in pursuance to a well-knit pre-planned design.