Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.37 seconds)Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 195 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 [Entire Act]
The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958
Bijender @ Vijay Fauji vs State on 14 February, 2012
Initially in his cross
examination he supported the version of the prosecution. But later on
to the leading questions put to him he turned hostile and supported
the version of the accused. Thus the possibility of PW3 being won over
by the accused during the said period cannot be ruled out. His
STATE VS. MOHIT JAIN FIR NO.220/97
9/17
examination in chief recorded on 16.11.1999 is in consonance with his
previous statement recorded u/s 161 of Cr.PC. The Judgment of
Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case titled as "Bijender Singh @ Vijay
Fauji Vs. State" 2012 III AD (Delhi) 178 wherein the appreciation of
evidence of such witness has been discussed is quite relevant in the
present case. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed that the
court cannot surmise what was the cause for the volte face, the
reasons are not hard to see. The witness was either won over by the
inducement or threatened. Yet the consistency as far as his statement
to the police on the one hand and his statement recorded during his
examination in chief makes him reliable, rather then his later
deposition. In the present case in hand also the consistency of PW3 in
his chief and his initial cross examination has to be considered.
Therefore the version of PW3 in his examination in chief has to be
accepted as true which also corroborates the version of PW1.