State Of Chhattisgarh vs Indira Bai 4 Wpc/1549/2016 Prakash ... on 29 January, 2018
Her statement
U/sec 164 Cr. P. C. was Ex.PW1/B. She had given photocopy of
rent agreement of aforesaid premises executed between her and
FIR No. 259/2016 State Vs. Uttam Kumar Dass & Ors ; PS GKI 5 of 20
accused Uttam Kumar Dass as a lessor on behalf of Mrs. Bimla
Devi which was MarkA.
During crossexamination PW2 deposed that she was
BA in Economics. At the time of incident, her office timings
were between 02:30 PM to 11:30 PM in the night. It was correct
that when she took the property on rent, she had taken a service of
property dealer but she did not remember the name today. It was
correct that the name of the property dealer was Bhuvnesh. She
had the taken the property on rent since she was assured by the
property dealers that her problems narrated to him would be taken
care. It was correct that the property in which she shifted was
painted before her taking its possession. It was correct that there
was a document executed by her with the landlord pertaining to
fitting and fixtures also apart from the rent agreement. She had
not given any notice in writing to landlord once she found that
certain fitting and fixture missing through narrated in the
documents signed by her. However, she had told them verbaly. It
was correct that the house were situated in a residential area and
was thickly populated and some of the houses had its balcony
over looking hers. It was correct that accused Uttam Kumar Dass
used to have a shop on the ground floor of the said premises
which he used to manage on his own alongwith his son. It was
wrong to suggest that accused Partho Dass and Pankaj Dass never
used to sit on the aforesaid shop with accused Uttam Kumar Dass.