LAKHAN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question arises: whether the injury on the back of Chinga (PW 2) was inflicted by the applicant -accused Lakhan? Chinga (PW 2) has, no doubt, stated in his examination -in -chief about the injury on his back -being inflicted by accused Lakhan with an axe, but, this witness in his cross -examination, has stated that he had notseen Lakhan assaulting him with an axe with his own eyes. Chinga (PW 2) had himself lodged the report (Ex. P -l) at police -station Jabera, but this very witness Chinga had stated during his cross -examination that 4 -5 persons had accompanied him when he had gone to lodge the report and that, they had told every -thing about the incident. In his report (Ex. P -1), Compainant Chinga (PW 2) has stated that Teji Chamar had seen the incident, but Teji (PW 4) had clearly stated in his cross -examination that he had not seen the assault with an axe with his own eyes and that the persons had stated that the accused had assaulted, although this very witness had earlier stated in his examination -in -chief about Lakhan (accused) having assaulted Chinga with an axe from behind.

(2.) HALKE (PW3) is the father of complainant Chinga and this witness has also dearly stated in his cross -examination that no assault (Marpit) had taken place in his presence and that the accused had not assaulted his son with an axe in his presence. Further, according to Halka (PW 3), he had asked his son Chinga as to who had assaulted him with an axe and his son had told him that he had been assaulted with an axe from behind -while he was bending and that he had not told anyone's name.

(3.) CHINGA (PW 2) is himself the injured person and in his examination -in -chief recorded on 26.11.84, he had clearly stated about the accused Lakhan having assaulted him on the back with an axe at the time when he was bending, but this very witness, when he was cross -examined on behalf of the accused on 25.2.1985, had changed his earlier version and had stated that he had not seen Lakhan assaulting him with an axe with his own eyes. Thus, this witness Chinga (PW 2) had given two different versions regarding the incident and, so, it was the bounden duty of the prosecution to get the fact clarified during the reexamination as to which version regarding the incident was correct, but this was not done.