ABDUL SATTAR Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) In the present case the prosecution examined as many as six wit- nesses, two of whom were police witnesses, one was the landlady who turned hostile and Public Witness 1 was the only independent witness whose evidence has been acted upon. Public Witness 6 is the Investigating Officer. It appears that the house was searched on 5/03/1986 at about 9. 00 a. m. It was suggested in the cross-examination of Public Witness 1 that he was working as a home Guard and was not present at the time of search. In support of this suggestion, a letter purported to have been written by the Sub- divisional Police Officer, Mapusa, Goa dated 23/01/1990 was relied upon to show that this witness was actually detailed for traffic duty at Colvale on 5/03/1986 from 8. 00 to 12.30 hrs. Another document dated 10/05/1988 was produced to show that Public Witness 1 was enrolled as a home Guard volunteer on 27/01/1986 and he was on traffic duty at mapusa on 5/03/1986. These two documents were of vital importance to determine whether Public Witness 1 was telling the truth when he said that he was with the raiding party at 9. 00 a. m. on 5/03/1986. We think that the High court should have recalled the witness and permittedthe accused appellant to cross-examine him and, if necessary, could have examined the signatories of the two documents as court witness to ascertain the truth and veracity of the statement made by Public Witness 1. If Public Witness 1 was not telling the truth, the High court would have been required to consider the impact thereof on the prosecution case. In para 9 of the judgment the High court has refused to look into the correspondence on the ground that Public Witness 1 was thoroughly cross-examined. If the appellant- accused came into possession of a document which would impeach the veracity of the evidence of Public Witness 1 then it was incumbent on the High court to give him an opportunity to show that Public Witness 1 was not telling the truth. We feel that these documents were relevant and an opportunity should have been allowed to impeach the veracity of Public Witness 1. On this short ground, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High court and remit the matter to the High court for disposal in accordance with law after recalling the witness and permitting the appellant accused to cross- examine him and if necessary, to examine the author of the documents relied on.