NARSINH NANABHAU PATIL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . But Mr. Shethnas criticism on the evidence of this natural witness was that the did sign the police statement which he had given before the police on the day of the occurrence. It may be stated that in this behalf we may usefully refer to the reported decision of the Full Bench of this Court in NATHU MANDU V. STATE 18 G.L.R. 1041 wherein it is observed as follows:-

(2.) . In the instant case the witness has only deposed before the learned trial Judge that he merely signed the statement. His evidence does not disclose that he referred to the police statement or he actually read the police statement when he was in the witness box. His evidence also does not show that the police read over the police statement before he entered the witness box.

(3.) . At this stage we may also usefully refer to the decision of the Privy Council in ZAHIRUDDIN V. EMPEROR A.I.R. (34) 1947 PRIVY COUNCIL 75 wherein the Privy Council observed as follows:-