State vs . Amrawati & Anr. on 21 April, 2015
7. This witness was cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel
wherein she stated that she was alone at her home when aforesaid incident
happened with her at around 4.00 or 5.00pm. She further deposed that she
was residing at first floor of the premises which she was locked inside the
room which belongs to the accused persons on the ground floor. At that time
nobody except the accused persons and her were present. She further
deposed that police came there around 7.00pm and she was saved by
nobody and the accused persons beaten her up continuously, meanwhile
her husband also came from office and he made a call on 100 number and
police there and got opened the door. She further deposed that her husband
was working with DDA and he used to come at around 6 to 6.30pm at home
and her broken tooth was not taken into possession by police as same was
removed by the accused persons by throwing it in gutter at about 6.00pm.
She had told the said fact to the police but she cannot say whether this fact
was recorded by police in her statement or not. She further cannot say
whether the danda used by accused persons was taken into possession by
police or not. She had told the said fact to the police about the danda used
FIR No. 928/05 State Vs Amrawati etc. Pages 3/13
by accused persons. She further deposed that she does not remember
whether this fact was recored by the police in her statement or not as she
was unconscious at that time due to severe beating given by accused
persons to her. She was unconscious till her husband came at about 6 or
6.30pm. She further deposed that she does not remember how many police
persons came to the spot, again said 4 persons. Due to the hitting by danda
her whole jaw got dislocated/fractured and her tooth also got broken and her
whole mouth got swollen. She denied the suggestion that she had told the
doctor that the said incident had happened at 5.30am (confronted with
portion A to A on MLC). She further deposed that the blouse piece which
was torn by the accused Sanjeev was taken into possession by the police
and at the time of seizing said cloth her signatures were also taken on the
memo/document (confronted the said document i.e. seizure memo is not in
the case file). It was not a danda but it was a bat. She further deposed that
her statement was recorded at PS at about 9 to 10 pm after her medical
examination. She further deposed that the police reached the spot after the
passage of two hours of incident. She further deposed that she remained at
hospital for two hours and she was discharged on the very same day from
the hospital. It took about one hour to reach the PS from AIIMS hospital and
she remained at PS about 2-3 hours and she left the PS at about 10pm. She
denied the suggestion that the accused also received injury caused by her in
her thumb by biting, during the scuffle. She admitted that the MLC of the
accused Amrawati was also prepared. Again said, she does not remember
whether the medical examination of accused Amrawati was conducted or
not. She denied the suggestion that the accused Sanjay was not present at
the spot at the time of alleged incident.