Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.26 seconds)
State vs : on 29 November, 2010 cites

Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 July, 1991

The incident took place for about half an hour from starting the altercation till his father given a knife blow. The submission on behalf of the accused to the effect that the PW-4 Om Prakash @ Bablu has deposed in his cross examination on SC No. 53/08 Page 31/35 dated 25.08.05 that when the incident happened he was inside the house and he did not see anything else meaning thereby his testimony recorded on earlier point of time may not be believed is not convincing as it is an established law of land that if the cross examination of a witness is recorded after a considerable period of recording of examination in chief, his testimony recorded on earlier point of time has to be believed as the testimony recorded after a considerable long time may give time for winning over the witness, tutoring, manipulating and also a witness may forget some of the things due to the lapse of time. I found the testimony of PW-4 recorded on earlier point of time on dated 13.12.04 is quite coherent, probable and trustworthy and inspire the confidence of the court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in "Khujji @ Surender Tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh" has also ruled that "evidence of hostile witness cannot be rejected into merely because prosecution choose to treat him hostile and cross-examined him - evidence of such hostile witness cannot be treated as effaced or washed off record altogether - same can be accepted to extent their version is found to be dependable on careful scrutiny thereof". Though PW-5 Hem Chand S/o Sh. Babu Lal has not fully supported the case of the prosecution but he has also given the truthful version of the prosecution story to the effect that it was a summer season, marriage was being held, tent was erracted in front of his house, DJ was playing and he was dancing at about 12.45 AM. At that time, accused Tukkan and SC No. 53/08 Page 32/35 Rajesh, present in court, (witness pointed out towards accused Rajesh and Neeraj respectively) with another Nirza. Both the accused present in court gave beatings and he returned to his house. By kicking him accused exhorted "khali kar raha hai ya kara de". His father and younger brother Om Prakash @ Bablu were sitting on cot in front of their house at that time. His elder brother came inside the house and inquired as to what had happened. His brother assured him to make accused persons understand and they came out. He saw his father lying on dari who was bleeding and all the three accused persons running. He saw blood stained knife in the hands of accused Nirza. His father was declared dead and his postmortem examination was conducted. Hence, his testimony to the effect is convincing that a quarrel had taken place between him and accused persons with regard to dancing on the DJ. The testimony of PW-6 Sanjay is also a chain in the prosecution story as PW-6 Sanjay run a tent house with the name and style of R.L. Tent House. In the night intervening 11-12.5.04, he has installed a tent in front of house no. 1196 and the main gate of the tent was erracted in front of house no. 1181. He left the house at 9.30 PM. At about 12.30- 12.45 PM, he was informed by his worker Sonu that a quarrel had taken place in the tent. He reached the site and saw blood on the carpet provided by him. He has identified blood stained piece of carpet Ex.P-2 is also the part of the same carpet. Hence, he has proved a chain of prosecution story that there was marriage SC No. 53/08 Page 33/35 function in which he has arranged necessary tent etc. and a quarrel had taken place and blood stained carpet was seized. The testimony of the part IO namely PW-18 SI Raghubir Singh and second IO PW-24 Inspector Azad Singh is also quite coherent, probable and trustworthy and inspire the confidence of the court. The chain of evidence is also complete.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 995 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document
1