AMARPAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have repeatedly emphasized the evidentiary value and importance of memos prepared contemporaneously during investigation, while appreciating the testimony of those who claim to be eye witnesses. It is unfortunate that we are repeatedly noting that the learned Trial Judges are gullibly accepting, as gospel truth, whatever is spoken of by those who claim to be eye witnesses. The instant case is a classic example of how people can manage to tell lie and unless a Judge is vigilant, gross injustice may result.

(2.) We beg the pardon of being a little prolix while writing this decision, for the reason we intend to carry out an academic exercise for the benefit of learned Trial Judges; so that they are guided, in future, as how should a Court approach the task of appreciating evidence in relation to ocular evidence and the contemporaneous memos containing record of investigation prepared by the police.

(3.) That a crime was committed within jurisdiction of PS Sarita Vihar finds a mention in the PCR form Ex.PW-13/A, when Const. Kishan Singh PW-13, noted at 23:55 Hrs. on 13.1.2002 of having received a telephone call from the telephone No. 6951267. The caller gave his name as Feroz and informed that in front of the house of Jai Prakash Pahlwan, in village Jasola, the head of a male human is lying. It may be noted that Feroz has been examined as PW-1.