Crl.A(J) 165/2004 - Gauhati High Court

days ago from 160 Bighas of land of one Mahar Ali, who is the
brother of the accused Jahar Ali, for whom a murder case was
lodged and Hasen Ali was an accused in the said case. The
witness was basically cross-examined to project a story that the
deceased was involved in a number of criminal cases.
22. PW 9 is the Investigating Officer and PW 10 is the Officerin-Charge
of the Chapor Police Station, who had finally
submitted the charge sheet.
23. Sri Roy, learned counsel for the respondents argued that
the testimonies of PWs 4 and 5 are contradictory on material
points. According to the learned counsel, PW 4 has deposed
that he had come to Chapor market on the previous day,
whereas PW 5 has admitted in the cross-examination that he
and Shah Alam came to Chapor on the very day of the
occurrence and this discrepancy was also taken note of by the
learned Sessions Judge as material contradiction to record the
judgment of acquittal. In our opinion, the contradiction can also
be looked into from different angle. PW 4 has nowhere claimed
in the examination in chief that he and PW 5 had come to
Chapor together on the previous day. Rather, in the crossexamination,
PW 4 has categorically stated that Jahar Ali (PW
5) had come to Chapor on the very day of the incident and only
in the afternoon they met in the market near a tea stall. The
evidence of PW 5 was recorded nearly after two years of the
incident. Even otherwise, whether PWs 4 and 5 had come to
Chapar from their respective villages on the previous day or on
the same day is immaterial since their meeting in the afternoon
in front of a tea stall has not been challenged. From the
Criminal Appeal No.165(J)/04 Page 13 of 13