Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.20 seconds)State Of U.P vs Preetam & Ors on 31 March, 2011
11. In this case accused has taken the defence that no such incident has taken
place and has examined one witness Vijender Singh who is uncle of accused, in DE,
where he has deposed that he was present there at that time at the shop and accused has
not used any abusive language against her. Apart from this witness counsel for accused
has given suggestion to the complainant that accused has been wrongly framed by the
complainant, but no reason has been given by the defence that why complainant will
frame her as there is no animosity between them and they do not know each other before
the incident. Coming to the testimony of DW-1, the testimony of witness can't be relied
upon as he is uncle of accused and is an interested witness and his story does not fit into
the situation. According to the story of prosecution incident happened outside house of
complainant and there is no mention of any shop or tent house mentioned in site plan or
in investigation by IO, but DW-1 has stated that accused was present in Tent house and
complainant came there. It is settled law that testimony of interested witness needs to be
read cautiously and should be corroborated by independent witness. So, the defence of
accused appears to be an afterthought. Hence the testimony of DW-1 in unreliable and
FIR No. 814/15 State Vs. Preetam Page No. 11 of 17
stands discarded.