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

these witnesses had specifically named all the five respondents
as assailants of Hasen Ali. Strangely, in the cross-examination,
the Investigating Officer also did not say that PWs 4 and 5 did
not name the accused persons as the offenders. The
Investigating Officer was confronted by the defence only to
contradict the parts of the body on which the deceased was
assaulted. Both PWs 4 and 5 had stated before the Investigating
Officer that the accused persons had assaulted Hasen Ali at
random at different places but while giving depositions in the
court the witnesses have just clarified as to on which part of the
body assaults were inflicted. Hence, we hold that the view
taken by the learned Sessions Judge about material
contradictions is not correct.
26. The learned Sessions Judge has also relied upon the
testimony of PW 1 to take a view that PW 4 did not disclose the
names of the assailants when PW 1 met him near a pharmacy.
In our considered opinion, the testimony of PW 1 has been
twisted in favour of the accused persons without giving any
thought as to under what circumstance both PWs 1 and 4 met
each other. Apparently, PW 4 was in a hurry to report the
incident to the son of the deceased. PW 1 was apparently not a
relative of the deceased and as such PW 4 may not have
thought it necessary to give vivid description of the incident,
including the names of the assailants. Be that as it may, PW 1
has nowhere stated that he had specifically enquired from Sah
Alam (PW 4) as to who had committed the murder and without
any such question PW 4 may not have discussed the incident in
detail. In this way, the testimony of PW 1 cannot be said to be
Criminal Appeal No.165(J)/04 Page 15 of 15