BABU LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) So, we do not find that the place of occurrence had been changed while giving evidence in Court by this witness or by other witnesses. The place of occurrence is also pin pointed from the lifting of the blood and other articles from the spot. It has been urged that the police had found at the place of occurrence half filled bottle of liquor and some broken pieces of glass and the same have not been linked With the details of the occurrence given by the eye witness Ram Kishan.

(2.) It must be emphasised that attention of Ram Kishan and Baljit was attracted towards the place of occurrence when they were entering the small gate on hearing a noise of quarrel coming from the place of occurrence. So, they are not witnesses to the whole of the occurrence which might have taken place before they reached near the place of occurrence and saw Babu Lal attacking Nathu with a 'Pharsa'. Rather the witness. Ram Kishan, has not tried to embellish the story in order to give any false version of having witnessed the whole of the occurrence which may have resulted in breaking of some glass after some drinking bout taking place at the spot.

(3.) It has been urged that there is some discrepancy in the testimony of Ram Kishan as to whether Babu Lal had assaulted Nathu when Nathu was standing or sitting on a bench. We do not think that this particular discrepancy which appears in the statement of Ram Kishan goes to the root of the matter. The testimony has been given by Ram Kishan in Court after about 15 months of the occurrence. So, such discrepancies on some immaterial points do appear in statements of even most truthful witnesses. It is to be emphasised that Ram Kishan is not a literate person so that he could narrate the facts without making any mistakes.