PANKAJ BISWAS, Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE are commencing our judgment in an unconventional manner, for this is requirement of the instant case inasmuch as what we need to decide is: whether the prosecution has successfully proved the facts mentioned in the statement Ex.PW -16/A made by Const. Naresh Pal to Insp. Harcharan Verma PW -26 and the facts mentioned in the endorsement Ex.PW -26/A made by Insp. Harcharan Verma beneath the statement Ex.PW -16/A. The statement Ex.PW -16/A made by Const. Naresh Pal reads as under:

(2.) THE endorsement Ex.PW -26/A beneath the statement Ex.PW -16/A reads as under:

(3.) FROM the statement Ex.PW -16/A made by Const. Naresh Pal it is apparent that he and Const. Rambir were on patrolling duty when a guard informed them of ruffians having entered House No. 55, Mandakini Enclave and the said two officers telephonically informed the police station and stood guard, one each on the front and the rear of House No. 55, Mandakini Enclave and continued to remain there till Insp. Harcharan Verma, SI Balram, SI Lalit Kumar, Const. Harender and Const. Ramdiya reached the spot. It may be noted that though the reference is to the house, but it is actually Flat No. 55, Mandakini Enclave on the ground floor of the cluster of buildings in Mandakini Enclave.