-) HIGH COURT OP CHHATHSGARH. BILA8PUR Dtvision Bench: Hon'Me Shrl Justice L.C. Bhadoo <fc Hon^ble Shri Justice Suidl Kumar Sinha, JJ. Griminal Aooeal llo. 646 of 2001 Siujan Vs. State ofChhattisgarh And other connected Criminal Appeals No. 650/2001, 715/2001, 761/2001, 786/2001, 822/201, 824/2001, 842/2001, 851/2001, 868/2001, 873/2001 & 924/2001. JUDGMBKT Judgment for consideration _VA_ 'AJ»C- ^ ^r^ sd/- Hon^ble Shrl Justice L.C. Bhadoo. J Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Post for Judgment: /f .05.2007 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge HICai COURT OF CHHATnSGARH. BILA8PUR Dlvtelon Bench: Hon'ble Shrl Jnstlce L.C. Bhadoo & Hon^ble 8h»tJiwtice Sunil Kiunar Sinha, JJ. APPBLLANT 1110.6460f2001 Surjan, S/o Saraharam, Aged about 35 years, R/o VUIage- Bhaismudi, Distt,- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Ver«u» RB8PONDBNT State ofChhattisgarh, Through S.H.O., P.S. Jaiijgir-Champa (C.G.) Janjgir, DistL- Crlmlnal Aooeal Ko«fiSO of 2001 APPBLLANT8 RB8POIIDBNT 1 Balchaad son of Kaahajya Singh, aged 70 years, R/o Village- Bhaismundi, P.S. Jaajgir, Distt,- Jajijgir-Chaxnpa (C.G.) 2 Devilal S/o Viraai, aged 71 yeara, R/o ViUage Bhaismundi, P.S. Janjgir. Ver»n» State of Chhattisgarh, Through ; P.S, Janjgir, Distt- Janjgir- Champa (Chhattisgarh) APPBULANTS Crlmlnal Appeal Wo. 715 of 2001 1 Janak Son of Nafhuram Yadav, Aged about 30 years 2 BhagwatSonofGhiralKashyap, Aged about 32 years. Both resident and cultivator ofViUage Bhaismudi, P.S, Janjgir, Distt. Champa Janjgir C.G. Versiw RESPOllDBnT State ofChhattisgarh, Through Policc Station Janjgir y-2 APPBLLAHT RB8POMDBIIT C^lmlnal Anneal Wo. 761 of 2001 Kumar Siagh, son of Bajrang Singh Thakur, aged about 34 years, residcnt of viBagc Bhaismundi, P.S. Janjgn-, Distt.- Janjgir (Chliattisgarh) Versus State ofChhattisgarh: Through: P.S. Jaiijgir, Distt,- Janjgir (Chhattisgarh) Grimlnal ABpeal Ho. 786 of 2001 APPBLLANT8 RBSPOIIDBHT 1 Saatosh Siagh S/o Rameshwar Siagh aged about 34 years, rcsident of Behasmudi, P.S. Jaajgir, Distt. Janjgir-Chaiiipa (C.G.) 2 Nande Siagh S/o Rameshwar Siagh, aged about 30 years, rcsident of Behasmudi, P.S. Janjgir, Distt. Jaajgur-ChaDipa (C.G.) 3 Rameshwar S/o Kusal Singh, aged about 75 years, resident of Behasmudi, P.S. Janjgir, Distt Janjgu'-Champa (C.G.) (Died duriaig the pendency ofAppeal). 4 Nand Kumar S/o Rameshwar Singh, aged about 25 years, Versus State ofChhattisgarh Through : District Magistrate, Janjgir (C.G.) APPBLLAMT RB8PONDBNT Rohit son of Harish Chaad, aged about 25 ycars, resident ofvillage Bhains Mudi, PoUce Station Janjgir, District -^Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. Versus State of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate, Janjgir. Crlmlnal Aooeal No. 824 of 2001 APPBLLAirre RB8POHDB11T 1. NIRMAL KASHYAP, aged 42 ycars, son ofTirifh Ram Kashyap, 2. JAIPAL KURMI, aged 36 Yeara, son of Baijnafh Kurmi, 3. RESHAM LAL KURMI, aged 40 years, son of Luru Kurmi, AU rcsidents of vfflage- Bhaismudi, PoUce Station- Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) Vcraus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, tlirough PoUce Station Jaajgir, District - Janjgir-Chaaipa. C^lmtnal Anneal Vo. 842 of 2001 APPBLLANT8 RB8PONDB11T 1. Baran S/o Narayan Kurmi, Aged about 40 years, 2. Chhatrajn S/o Shri Raai Kashyap, Aged about 35 years, Both are resident of ViUage Bhaisgudi, PoUce Station Janjgir, Distt - Janjgir Ver»ns STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Through Station House Officer Police Statiou Janjgir f'^lmlnal Anneal Ko. 8S1 of 2001 APPBLLANT RB8P011DBWT Raj Kumar S/o Bajrang Singh aged about 48 years, resident of Village Behasmudi, P.S. Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through District Magistarate, Jaajgir thc APPBLLAMT RB8PQNDB11T APPBLLANT8 Crlmlnal Aoneal Wo. 868 of 2001 Guharam S/o Bhukhan Kunni, aged 38 years, R/o ViUage Bhaiasiaudi, P.S. Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Versiw State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House OfBcer, Jaajgir, District Janjgir-Champa (Chhattisgarh) INo. 873 of 2001 1. Dhaaanjay S/o Baijnath, aged about 30 years 2. Amriflal S/o Konda, aged about 40 years Both resident ofVillage : Bhaismudi, P.S. Jaajgir, District: Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) RBSPOaDBBT Versus State ofChhattisgarh, Through PoUce Station Janjgir APPBLLAHT AWD Grlminal Auoeal No. 924 of 2001 Basaat Das son of Shri Lal Das, aged about 26 yeara, residcnt of viUage Bhaismudi, P.S. - Janjgir, District- Janjgir (C.G.) Versua RB8PONDENT State ofChhattisgarh, Through : P.S. Janjgir, Distt. Jaajgir- Champa (C.G.) Apoearance: Shri B.M,K. Bajpai, Advocate, appears for tihie appeUants in Cr.A. No. 715/2001. Shri S.L. Bajaj, Advocate, appears for fhe appellants in Cr.A. No. 873/2001. Shri N.L. Soni, Advocate, appeara for the appeUaats ia Cr.A. No. 650/2001. Shri Sonmath Verma, Advocate, appeare for fhe appellants in Cr.A. Nos. 761/2001 & 824/2001. Shri Prafull Bharat and Shri Saatosh Bharat, Advocates, appear for fhe appellants in Cr.A. No. 786/2001. Ms. Sharmfla Singhai, Advocate, appeare for the appellants in Cr.A. Nos. 646/2001 &842/2001. Dr. Shailesh Ahuja, Advocate, appears for the appellaat in Cr.A. No. 924/2001. Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, Advocate, appeara for the appeUant inCr.A. No. 822/2001. Shri P.S. Chandel, Advocate, appears for the appeUant in Cr.A. No. 851/2001. Ku. Minu Baaerjee, Advocate, appears for fhe appellant in Cr.A. No. 868/2001. Shri G.K. Beriwal, Dy. Advocate General and Shri U.N.S. Deo, Additional PubUc Prosecutor, appear for fhe State/rcspondent in aU fhe Criminal Appeals. JUDGMBKT (11.05.2007) A& oer 8nnil Knniar Slnha^ J- (1) These appeals adse out of a common judgment dated 12.7.2001 passed in Sessions Trial No.340/95 by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Janjgir (C.G), fherefore, they arc being disposcd ofby this common judgment. (2) These appeUants, 21 in number, out ofwhich one namely Raineshwar, appeUant m Cnmiaal Appeal No.786/2001, who died during the pendency of the appeal, alongwith 10 other co- accused persons werc chorged u/ss 148 & 302 rcad with section 149 ofI.P.C. (3) The aUegations are that on 17.1.1995 in village Bhaismudi, they committed rioting being armed wifh deadly weapons and beiag fhe ineinbers ofan unlawful assembly, ia prosecution of the coininon object of fhat assenibly, coinniitted murder ofthe deceased namely Ramanuj @ Vikki Singh. x 6 <$) (4) The case of the prosecution is that fhe accused peraons had constituted Shiv Sena in fheir village and fhey were havmg some dispute with the deceased. In the interyenmg night of 16.1.1995 and 17.1.1995, fhey convened a meetmg and planned for eliminating fhe deceased. On 17.01.1995 when the deceased was rctuming back fix>m his fields at about 11-12 houra in the day, fhey armed with deadty weapons, surrounded fhe deceased aad gave fatal blows to him, due to which, the deceased died on ffae spot. The stoiy which comes fhrough the evidence of P,W. 14, Karia, is fhat he was accompanying fhe deceased on his bicycle. Vikki Siagh was driving fhe bicycle and he was sitting as piflion rider. When fhey reached near Ncwataldb (a tank), he saw fhat Guha Siagh was sitting fhere and ofher accused persons namety Nande, Rameshwar Singh, Lala, Raj Kumar, Kumar Siagh, Baran, Chatram, Amrit aU these peraons were also sittmg near the Tank. As soon as fhe bicycle reached to fhe tank, accused Nande, Giiha, Rainieshwar Singh, Lalarain, Kumar Smgh, Amrit, Baraa, Chatram, afl these persons started assaultmg ttie deceased Ramanuj @ ViKki Singh by Lathis and Tabbat Seeiag afl fhese, he ran away fix?m tihe place of occurrence leaving Vikki Singh all alone, and reached to the house of Madhubala @ Baby (P.W. 10) who fe daughter of Jawahar Singh, aad narrated the stoiy to her. On this, Baby told him to mfonn the wife ofVikki Smgh (her aunt). Thcreafter he went to teU the stoiy to the wife of deceased, who said him to tell the stoiy to other pereons, on which he narrated fhe story to fhe wife of Jawahar Singh. Thercafter, Madhubala @ Baby (P.W.10) narrated tfae stoiy to Vinay Kumar Singh (P.W.4), son of deceased who lodged the First Information Report at about 17 houra on the same day vide Ex.P.38. The F.I.R. contains fhe names of 12 accused persons ie., Kuniar Sic^h, Naiide Singh, Santosh Singh, Giiharam Kashyap, Jaipal Kashyap, Raj Kumar Singh, Nand Kumar, Reshanilal, Prahlad Siagh, Rameshwar Smgh, Dhanjay Kashyap and Rohit Kumar Kareh. It also contains fhe fact that on the same day, after murdcr of the deceased, tihie accused peraons went towards elder brofher ofthe deceased, Jawahar Singh and his sons Bhupendra Singh and ShaUendra Singh, who werc working in fheir respective fields and they also assaulted fheni, due to which Jawahar Singh aad Bhupendra Singh died in the field itself whercas Shailendra Siagh has received grievous mjuries. Later on ShailendraSingh also died. For death of these tfaree peraons, a separate crime was rcgistered. After the second incident, the 3rd iacident also took place at about 1 p.m. ia which the deceased Kali Charan was inurdered for which anofher crime was also registered and separate investigations were done ia aU fhe cases. (S) Dunng the course of investigation, mquest on the body of the deceased was prcpared vide Ex. P.4 and it was sent for posttnortem. The postmortem was conducted by P.W.13, Dr.Arvind Dwivedi, who noticed the foUowing extemal injuries on the body ofthe deceased: 1. A lacerated wound 4 cni. x 1.5 CDI, x bone deep at posterior aspect of right elbow. Olecraaon process was exposed and fracturcd, clotted blood was present 2. Ahnost T shaped incised wound over scalp at right padeto-temporal region and extendiag towards (left) parietal rcgion. Horizontal anxi 8 cm. x 4 cm, x brain deep vertical arm (extending towards left padetal region) 8 cni. x 4 cin. approx. x brain deep. Bram inatter was coining out fhrough fhe wound due to compound fracturc of both parietal bones and right temporal bone, 3. An incised wound 6 cm. x 2 cm. x bram deep verticaUy obliquety placed over right occipito-parietal region of fhe scalp, Practured bone and lacerated brain matter was seen fhrough the wound. 4. An incised wound over post auricular right region 4 cm. x 1.5 cm. x bone deep verticaBy placed. Fractured right temporal bone was felt fhrough fhe woxind. The autopsy sui^eon gave his rcport Ex. P.45 and opined that the deceased died due to shock rcsulting from hemorrhage 5 caused by extensive head iajuiy aad the deafh was homicidal in nature. Thereafter, vadous articles, including the weapons of offence, werc seized and afler recordiag the statements of witaesses and completion of fhe usual investigation, a charge sheet u/ss 148, 302 & 120-B of I.P.C. was fUed against the accused persons m the Court ofJ.M.F.C., Janjgir vide Criminal Case No. 1062/1995, who in tum committed the matter to the Court of Sessions fi-om wherc it was received on teansfer by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Jaiijgir, who conducted the trial and passed the impugned judgment on 12.7.2001, whercby fhe said Court convicted the appeUants as aforcmentioned and acquitted 10 co-accused persons. It is against fhis judgment ofconviction and order of sentence, passed by the said Court, above 12 appeals have been filed. (6) The conviction of the appeUants are based upon testimonies of six witnesses, who were cited as eye witnesses ia fhe matter, namefy Madhubala@ Baby (P.W.10), Karia Sabadya (P.W.14), Jamwanti Bai (P.W.8), Vrjay Singh (P.W.9) Kashvira Bai (P.W.12) and Saraswati Bai (P.W.16). In appreciation, the leamed Sessions Court found that there was no involvement of those 10 co-accused persons who have been acquitted m this case. However, according to fhe said Court, fhe involvement of the appellants ia commission of the crinie was held to be proved and they aU were convicted u/ss 148 & 302/149 I.P.C. and sentenced to iindergo iDiprisonnient for whole of their rcDiaiaiag life and to pay fine ofRs.200/-. (7) Leamed counsel for the appeUaats raised ahnost similar contentions. Their first contention was fhat except P.W.14, Karia Sabariya, aU other witnesses arc relative witnesses, thereforc, they shaU be characterized as fhe interested witaesses and ffaeir testimonies should not be beUeved. P.W. 14 Karia Sabariya is also an unreUable witaess, as he has departed/deviated fix)m his previous statement on ^ inany iwints. In general, fhey argued fhat nearly aU the witnesses are iinreUable because they have very miuch deviated froin their previous statements, particularly, in raentioning fhe names ofassailants. Tbey also argued that omnibus statements regarding assaults by the other accused peraons fhan fhe specificany nained ones, by fhese witiesses, cannot be accepted as it would not be held that all ofthem have shared the common object of fhe speci&calty named assailants who are attributed specific overt act and the conviction of other accused persons wifhi the aid of section 149 would not be possible. They also argued that since the versions ofthe eye witnesses are not ftilly conoborated by the medical testimony, therefore, on fhis oount also fhey be disbeUeved. (8) Per contra, learaed coiinsel for the State argued that some of fhe assaUants werc speci&caUy mentioned by the cye witnesses and fhe evidence of these witaLesses would show that othera have shared comnion object of the actual assailants and the Sessions Court has rightfy convicted aU of theni on appreciation with fhe aid ofsection 149 ofI.P.C. (9) So far as the question of rclative witnesses are concemed, it has been held by the Apex Court m fhe matter of Rtaan and eawther -7s- State of Chhcitttsjnrarh, throuah the Chief Secretaru* Qoot. of Chhattlaaarh^ Rafsmr. AJR 2003 S.C. 976, ia para. 6, that the relationship is not a factor to affect credibility ofa witness. It is more often thaa not a rclation would not conceal actual culprit aad make aflegations against an innocent peraon. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false impUcation is made. In such a case, the Coiut has to adopt a careful approach and anatyze evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. (10) Relying upon fhe decision of the Apex Coiut ia Stdte of U.P. -Vs- Pctras Nath Siiwh and ethers AIR 1973 S.C. PBT.1073, the Division Bench ofthe Kerala High Court also held 10 in the matter of Sahadevan Rafan and others -Vs- StaU of JBTerata, 199^ CRLL^f. 2049 that the straightforward and trustworthy evidence of rclations of fhe deceased need not corroboratlon for sustainiag the conviction. Such evidence caanpt be discarded on the sole ground of iatercstedness in the prosecution case. (11) In Neundeo -Va- State of Maharashtre^ 2007 AIR SCW 183S, fhe Apex Court held fhat a witness who is a relative of deceased or victun of tiie criiae cannot be characterized as 'interested'. The term 'interested* postulates that the witness has soine direct or indircct <interesty in haviag fhe accused soniehow or other convicted due to aniinus or for sonie other obUque motive. The Apex Court also obseryed fhat a close relative caanot be characterizGd as aa 'interested^ witness. He is a <natural> witaess. His evidence, however, must be scrutmized carefiiUy. If on such scrutiny, his evidence is found to be intrinsicaUy reliable, inherently probable aad wholly trustworthy, couviction can be based on the 'sole^ testimony of such witness. Close rclationship ofwitaess with the deceased or victim is no ground to rcject his evidence. On fhe contrary close relative of the deceased would nonnalfy be niost reluctant to spare fhe rcal culprit aad falsely ituplicate an mnocent one. The Apex Court also referrcd to the decision rendercd in the niatter of Harbans Kaur emd euwther -Vs- State ofHarsiane^ 200S AER SCW 2074, in which, it was held that there is no proposition in law that relatives arc to be trcated as untruthful witaesses. On the contrary, reason has to be shown when a plea of partiality is raised to show fhat fhe witaesses had reason to shield the actual cnlprit aiid falsely implicate fhe accused. The Apex Court further niled that fhe testimony of the solitaiy witaess caa be basis for conviction. Neither flie legislaturc nor the judiciaiy mandates that tfaerc must be particular number of wifcaesses to record on order ofconviction e^ainst the accused. Our legal systein has always laid eniphasis on value, weight and ^ 11 quaUty of evidence rafher fhat on quantity, multipUcity or plurality ofwitaesses. It is, fherefore, open to a competent Court to fulfy and completely rely on a solitary witGtess and record conviction. Converaety, it may acquit fhe accused in spite of testimony of several witnesses if it is not satisfied about the quality ofevidence. The bald contention titiat no conviction can be recorded ia case of a solitary eye-witaess, thercfore, has no force aad must be negatived. (12) About discrepancy in medical evidence and eye witaess account, it has been held by the Supreme Court in the matter of State of IT.P. -^>s- Kirtshna Gooal and cuurtfter. fl988f 4 9CC SQ^.and further in Rwnakant Rai -vs- Madan Rai asid athers ACR 2004 8.C. 77 fhat <(where the eye-witaesses^ account is found credible and trustworthy, medical opinion pointing to alteraative possibilities is not accepted as conclusive. Importance aad primacy should be given to the orality of the trial pnwess. Eye witnesses^ account would require a carcful independent assessment and evaluation for their crcdibflity which should not be adversely prejudged making aay other evidence, mcluding medical evidence, as fhe sole touchstone for fhe test of such crcdibilily. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency aiid the inhercnt probability of the stoiy; consistency wifh the account of ofher witaesses held to be creditworthy; consistency wifh the undisputed facts; the 'credif of the witaiesses; fheir performance in the witaess-box; fheir power of observation etc. TTien the probative value of such evidence becoines eUgible to be put iato fhe scale for a cumulative evaluation." (13) Thereforc, it i8 clear tfaat the eye witaess testimony may contain inaccuracies and exaggerations; therc may be errora or omissions on account of lapse of memoiy or poor power of observations or inabUity to recount and recite accuratety. SoDietiines, doctors also niay not bestow suflBcient care while perfonning exaiaination or preparing records and their opinion 12 niay be based on inadequate or incoinplete or defective exanunation or lack of coniplete knowledge. It is iadeed not fair to expect a total correspondence between these two items of evidence. Court must carefulty exaniine £hediscrepancies aiid,if it is rcasonably possible^to arrive at fhe substantial and true veraion. Court should not throw out the prosecution case on tfae basis of such discrepaxicies. Accuracy of inedical witaesses and ocular witaesses depends upon several factors. Inconsistency is not sufficient to discredit aa eye witness. Soinetiiaes aa eye witaess may aUege a blow or stab etc., but there may not be corrcsponding injuries. The possibility ofweapon not actualfy striking and not causiag injuiy cannot be ruled out. Eye witoaess may err ia details Uke direction or the blow etc. Inconsistency rcgardmg such details between the two items of evidence may not be important. There inay be discrepancies rcgardmg the weapon or manner of attack. If the eye witaess testimony is clear and convmciag, discrcpancies cannot matter. Doctor is a witness of both fact and opinion. Medical evidence acts as a check upon testimony of cye witness; it is also independent evidence in so far as it establishes facts e.g., tattooing marks, nature and dmiensions of iajuiy etc. Medical evidence is also corroborative of eye witness testmiony, m as much as it may show tilat fhe injuiy might have been caused in the manner alteged. Defence could use the medical evidence to show that the injuiy could not have been causedas alleged and fhereby discrcdit eye witness testimony. However, unless fhe medical evidence goes so far that it completety niles out aU possibility whatsoever ofthe iajuries takiag place in the manner alleged by the eye witaess, the prosecution version cannot be thrown out on fhe ground ofaUeged inconsistency between the two items of evidence. Court has to remember that medical evidence is inaiafy opiaion evidence on which the coiirt could form its own iadependent conclusion. In case of divergence, tfae Court must tiy to reconcile tfae two; if that is not possible the court has to appreciate the evidence like any ofher evidence, 13 having rcgard to rcasons and data provMied by fhe Doctor and fhe cogency or ofherwise of eye witaess testimony. If eye witnesses are crcdible and trustworthy, inedical opmion suggesting altemative possibOity may not be accepted as conclusive. Pnmacy should be given to oral evidence. pPUase <rfso see 2007 CJ?JA^7. 1036 - Alxuni Leixnuw. V» State of Chhattiaaarhi (14) About the aid of section 149, ia the matter ofBasisth Roil and ethers -vs- State of Sihar^ AIR 2003 S.C. 1439, the Apex Court held that when omnibus statement in the complamt fhat aU ofher accused also attacked wifh lathis are not supported by medical evidence or by witnesses, other accused cannot be held to have shared comnion object of the two accused as ia fhat case who are attributed specific overt act, sayiag this the Apex Court held that the conviction of other accused persons u/s 300 with fhe aid ofsection 149 is based on no laaterial aad the same was Uable to be set aside. (15) Therefore, it is clear that the omnibus statement about ofher accused persons fhan the mam assailants rcgarding pardcipation ia the cnme which may not constitute aa element of common object cannot make them responsible for conviction u/s 302 with the aid of section 149 I.P.C. and to this effect the scrutmy of the evidence has to be done to fmd out their pardcipation with rcference to the iagredients of section 149 or with reference to the share of the conuaon object of the main assailaats. (16) On the above principles, if we exainme fhe records, it woirid appear that Madhubala@ Baby (P.W. 10), who is fhe niece ofthe deceased Ramaauj @ Vikki Smgh^has deposed fhat on fhe fateful day i.e., 17.1.1995, at 11.00 - 11.30 a.m., she was present m her shop which is in the vicmity of the viUage. Karia Sabariya (P.W.14) came over to her and narrated that Vikki Singh is beiag assaulted near Navatalab. She deposed fhat 14 c^ Karia Sabariya told her the names ofthe assailants i.e., Nande, Kumar, Jaipal, Basant, Baran, Giiha, Ramesh, Basant Das, Dhanaajay, Rohit Karsh, Bhagw^at Kunni, ChhatramL, Aniritlal, Janak, Raca Khilawan, Nand Kumar, Santosh and Gopal Das. She has further added that Karia Sabarya had told her about the other accused persons also who are present ia the Court. She deposed that on receiving such inforDiation, she went towards Navatalab and when she reached fhere, she saw that afl the above persons were prcsent fhere aiid many other persons ia fhe form of a mob had also gathercd fhere. This is what she says in para 1 and 2. However, in para 3 she deposes that as soon as she reached to fhe place ofoccurrcnce, she saw that all fhe accused peraons mcluding those, who are named by her, were assaulting her uncle. The accused persons were armed with Tabbal, Parsa, Rod, Swords and also fhe lathi on which an iron part was fixed. She further deposed that they were sayiag that fhey have kiUed Vikki aad now they will kiU Jawahar aad his two sons m their fields and by saying these and usmg abusive laaguage, fhey marched towards the fields ofJawahar Singh. She deposes vide Para 4 fhat she was praying to the accused persons to forgwe the Uves (perhaps ffae life ofJawahar Singh etc.,) but the accused persons did not give heed to her caU aad ulfunatety after marching to the field ofJawahar Siagh, they assaulted her father (Jawahar Smgh), brothers Bhupendra Singh and Shailendra Singh, who also lost their lives. This witaess has been confnonted by her poUce statenient Ex. D-4. In her police statement she has mentioned the names of Nande, Kuinar, Jaipal, Guha,Rainesh, Dhaaj'ay, Rohit Karah, Nand Kiimar, Santosh (who are also named ia the court statement) but had also deposed about 3 more persons namely Prahlad Singh, Rameshwar Smgh and Rajkumar. (17) If we closely scrutinize the testimony of this wita^ess pardcularty wifh reference to fhe first uiforaiation rcport aad also wifh rcference to fhe evidence of Karia Sabariya (P.W. 14) & 15 /^.^ Jamwati (P.W.8), it would appear fhat she i8 inakuig exaggerations. This is a case, ia which, the F.I.R., was not lodged by an eye witness, but it was lodged by a person who was duly briefed by this witness Madhubala @ Baby (P.W. 10). In fhe F.I.R., onty foUowing persons are named Le./ Kiimar Siagh, Nande Singh, Santosh Stagh, Guharain Kashyap, Jaipal Kashyap, Raj Kuniar Siagh, Nand Kuiaar, Reshamlal, Prahlad Singh, Rameshwar Singh, Dhanaajay Kashyap and Rohit Kumar Karsh. These are 12 in nuiaber. Iffhe above 18 persous werc seen by fhis witness or fhe naines of 18 persons werc narrated to