According to the prosecution’s case, PW-1 Uday Raj Maurya, PW-2
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/disclosure-and-recovery-of-weapon-a-key-factor-in-conviction/
Ram Aadhar (father of PW-1) and Karam Hussain (deceased) were sitting near the doorsteps of the house of PW-1 and PW-2.
While PW-1, PW-2 and the deceased were discussing the issue of irrigating their fields, the accused persons came there carrying bricks and bamboo sticks.
SUBMISSIONS The learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that both PW-1 and PW-2 admitted in the cross- examination that they had not seen which accused assaulted the deceased. In the examination-in-chief, PW-1 stated that his father PW-2 fell on the ground due to the injuries sustained by him as a result of the assault made by bamboo sticks.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/moratorium-application-in-insolvency-case/
Now, coming to the testimony of PW-2, in his examination-in-chief, he stated that after two accused persons shouted that PW-1, PW-2 and the deceased should be killed, he started running away.
PW-1, in his examination-in-chief, stated that when he, PW-2 and the deceased were being assaulted, after hearing their shouts, Munif, Murtaza and Iltaf rushed there. In fact, in paragraph 15 of the cross-examination of PW-2, he stated that witness Munif had come to the Court on the very day on which his evidence was recorded, but he had become hostile. Considering the fact that the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 who were allegedly injured witnesses, cannot be believed, adverse inference will have to be drawn on account of the prosecution’s failure to examine the three eyewitnesses.
Oka)……………….
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/legal-analysis-juvenile-justice-act-and-incarceration-period/
J.
Case Title: SITA RAM Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (2023 INSC 364)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-001029-001029 / 2023
