Home >> Current Issues
Volume No - 17 Issue No - 9
Though, Inder (PWÂ2) is an injured eye witness, there are serious discrepancies and inconsistencies with regard to time of the injuries sustained and time at which he was medically examined. Dr. Anoop Kumar (PWÂ6), in his evidence, has changed his stance on several occasions. His testimony is totally contrary to that of Omveer (PWÂ1) and Inder (PWÂ2). As held by us, it will not be safe to base the conviction on the sole testimony of Inder (PWÂ2) though he is an injured witness. The corroboration sought by the prosecution with regard to alleged recoveries of the weapons used in the crime is also not free from doubt. Neither the station diary entry with regard to telephonic intimation given by Vijay Singh at 9.05 am has been brought on record nor has Vijay Singh been examined. Though independent witnesses were available, the prosecution has failed to examine them. We therefore find that this is a case wherein the appellants are entitled for benefit of doubt.