In the context of describing the incident in graphic details by
the witnesses, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sakharam (supra) observed that when not less than 23 persons participated in commission of offence with deadly weapons and attacked more than 4 to 5 persons with an intention to kill them, then the witnesses, who are closely related to the victims and who are also themselves the subject of assault, cannot be expected to describe the incident in graphic detail and with such precision as to which member and in what manner he participated in the commission of offence. When a simultaneous attack is made on several persons by several assailants, in that melee if the witnesses try to specify the role of each of the accused, then it could be called as unrealistic. {Para 42}
43. In case of Lakshmi Singh (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that when the incident was witnessed by the independent eye witnesses, the prosecution could have examined any of these witnesses to corroborate the version of the interested witnesses examined by the prosecution. It is further held that the evidence of prosecution witnesses show that they gave graphic description of the assault with regard to the order, the manner and the parts of the body with absolute consistency which gives an impression that they have given a parrot-like version acting under a conspiracy to depose to one set of facts and one set of facts only. It is further observed that initial dispute was between only two of the accused and other accused persons, who were not even remotely concern, have been introduced by way of embellishment in the case at the instance of injured witnesses.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 559 OF 2018
Komal Babusingh Ade, Vs The State of Maharashtra,
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE &
PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.
PRONOUNCED ON : FEBRUARY 02, 2022.
Citation: 2022(1) B Cr C 735
Print Page
