CHANDARJEET KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case once again exposits gigantic and undesirable problem of hostile witnesses, which adversely affects and extenuates decision making and disposal of criminal cases. Invariably when confronted with a perjurer, the courts take recourse and rely upon the legal ratio propounded by the Supreme Court way back in 1991 in Khujji Vs. State of M.P., 1991 AIR(SC) 1853. The vexation persists and in spite of claims on "witness protection" refuses to ebb and fade away. The pyrotechnic concoction of half truth and lies makes the adjudicator's task and responsibility strikingly onerous and laboriously exacting for the Court has to be absolutely sure and convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the truth can be separated from disguise and mask before the gospel decrypted can be unfailingly relied. Tutoring, turpitude and verisimilitude must be ruled out.

(2.) The undisputed position is that one Arun Mandal was shot and had died as a result of fire-arm injuries on 08.01.2007. The death was homicidal is proved and established by the postmortem report marked Ex.PW-3/A, which records two fire-arm entries wound over left side front of the chest, as elucidated by Dr. Upender Kishore (PW-3), in his testimony:-

(3.) On the question of homicidal death, we would be subsequently referring to the testimonies of Arvind Kumar Mandal (PW-1) and Rejnath Mandal (PW-4), the latter stately an eye witness to the occurrence who has turned hostile. Statements of the police officers, Inspector Dharamvir (PW-26), HC Rajinder Singh (PW-16) and S.I. Anuj Nautiyal (PW-22) are also relevant. We straight proceed to decide the primary and core issue; whether the appellant Charanjeet Kumar @ Kishan is the culprit and perpetrator, who caused the fire arm injuries on Arun Mandal.