there, thereafter the witness went to lodge the report.
This witness changed his version in Court by saying that
he not only saw the accused ... also not reliable as he was
younger brother of deceased and changed his version. As
per first version, he stated that he saw appellant Ramesh
surprising that the trial court having itself noticed that the version given in the trial court was substantially different from that in the first information ... version given in the first information report. This improved and-'changed version has obviously been given with an eye to deny the appellants
during cross examination, his version
changed. He varied from his earlier stand and stated that "Nay_Um
.dDOaIm .Km dVi_:n_\o.exIm ... during cross examination on the next day, the
witness changed his version. His original chief evidence is that "A1
fF^x,e A2ex
witnesses when
examined before the Court have all clearly given a different version that it was
accused No.4 who joined with accused ... weapon or was attributed with any over
act and therefore this changed version of the witnesses before the court would
indicate that all these witnesses
Shri Rathore further urged that Ashok Kumar (P.W.1)
completely changed his version in the trial of the accused Rama
Singh, Raj Singh ... that as the most material prosecution witness Shri
Ashok Kumar has changed his version in the trial of the
subsequently arraigned accused, credibility
Shri Rathore further urged that Ashok Kumar (P.W.1)
completely changed his version in the trial of the accused Rama
Singh, Raj Singh ... that as the most material prosecution witness Shri
Ashok Kumar has changed his version in the trial of the
subsequently arraigned accused, credibility
park and attacked the complainant.
Subsequently, the version of the complainant during investigation
changed, wherein it has been recorded in his statement on 10.05.2021, that ... Considering the nature of allegations and considering the changed
versions of the complainant, it is directed that in the event of arrest, the
applicant
intervening night of 7/8.8.2005 till 13.8.2005, their changed version of
pointing fingers at the accused persons had not come to light
According
to the defence counsel, the original version was changed to
suit the convenience of prosecution by registering the
F.I.R. belatedly. The High
trial Court on proper
reasoning and grounds denied to accept the aforesaid version
of said appellant.
23. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that ... Kaleem (PW8) are not conclusive
in nature. They have changed their version in their cross-
examination. Hence, conviction cannot be based on their testimony
