State Of Haryana vs Manoj Kumar on 2 November, 1993
In the present case, as per rukka after the apprehension of accused
IO HC Ram Karan had requested 4-5 passersbys to join the police
proceedings but all left the spot without telling their names and addresses
Page 5 of 12
6
FIR No. 170/04
State vs. Manoj
after giving reasonable excuses not joining the police proceedings. It is not
worthy that HC Ram Karan has not made a note of the excuses given by the
passersby in the rukka Ex. PW-1/B. This failure on his part goes to suggest
that he did not make sincere efforts to join the passers-by in the police
proceedings. At least in the facts and circumstances of the present case, HC
Ram Karan could have very well served the passersby the notice in writing
requiring them to join the police proceedings or to face action 187 IPC in as
much as in the present case there was no possibility of accused escaping his
apprehension/arrest or crime going undetected in as much as by the said
time, accused stood already apprehended by the police. Also in the present
case, time of apprehension of accused is a routing evening time and it cannot
be said that accused was apprehended at odd hours. Failure on the part of
prosecution to make sincere efforts for joining independent public witness in
the proceedings when they are available creates reasonable doubt in the
prosecution in view of the following case laws.