28/04/2024
_*⭐SC: P.W. failed to make statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. - It, therefore, appears that the only fact which was sought to be proved through this witness was not by stated by him in his statement recorded in the course of investigation.*_
_Prosecution Witness(P.W.) No. 5 Constable Ganga Ram was examined to prove that at about 7.00 a.m. on 27-4-1992. Respondent 1 had come to Gandhinagar Police Chowki to find out if any occurence had been reorted. He replied in the negative. On the same day at about 8.00 p.m. when he had come to Vartaknagar Police Station for roll-call he had noticed that the accused had been arrested and that he was the same person who had come in the morning to Gandhinagar Police Station. The evidence of this witness is of no significance and also appears to be untrue. He was confronted with his statement made before the police in the course of investigation, but this fact was not stated by him in his statement made before the police. It, therefore, appears that the only fact which was sought to be proved through this witness was not by stated by him in his statement recorded in the course of investigation._
_Case:_
_*Vimal Suresh Kamble Vs. Chaluverapinake Apal S.P. and Another.*_
_Citation:_
_*(2003) 3 SCC 175.*_
***************************
_*Shared by:*_
_*ADV. Chirag R.Sonecha*_
Ants&Bees
_*Sangli*_
_*Mobile: 9595783445*_
***************************