Brij Mohan vs State
2010 Latest Caselaw 5644 Del

         *              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                 Date of Reserve: 3rd December. 2010

                               Date of Order: December 10, 2010
                                  + Bail Appln. 1588/2010

%                                                                         10.12.2010

        BRIJ MOHAN                    .                                     ...Petitioner

                                      Versus

        STATE                                                             ...Respondent

Counsels:
Mr. B.K. Sharma, for petitioner.
Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for State/respondent.


        JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1.      Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.      Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?


                                          ORDER

1. This is an application for grant of bail made by the applicant/petitioner

during the pendency of the trial on the ground that the evidence of material

witness was over and nothing incriminating had come against the

applicant/petitioner. In the application, reference to the contradiction in the

statement of witnesses has been made.

2. I have gone though the statement of PW1 Mangal Singh. The

examination-in-chief of PW1 shows that he completely supported the

prosecution's case and has in detail described how the crime took place and

Bail Appln. 1588/2010 Page 1 Of 3 what was the involvement of the applicant. He was confronted with his statement

made to the police and it is argued that he had improved upon his statement

made to the police. Similarly, the attention of the Court was drawn to the

contradictions in earlier statement and the statement made in the Court. Learned

counsel for the applicant/petitioner has further drawn my attention to the

statement of PW3 Dr. S.Kohli, his cross-examination and the statement of other

witnesses. It was submitted that this was a fit case for grant of bail in view of

improvements, contradictions and in view of testimony of PW3.

3. I consider that it would not be appropriate for this Court to analyse the

statement of the witnesses recorded before the Trial Court at this stage and

come to conclusion whether the commission of offence has been proved against

the applicant or not as it will prejudice the interests of applicant. Suffice it to say,

the witnesses have not only described the role of the applicant but have also

supported the prosecution case. The contradictions and improvements in

statement to which counsel for the applicant has pointed out are not such that the

entire testimony of the witnesses stand washed away. It is settled law that

whenever a witness is examined in the Court after lapse of long time the

contradictions are ought to be there. The testimony of a witness cannot be

rejected on the ground that there were contradictions in the testimony given in the

Court and the statement made before the police. There is no authenticity of the

statement made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The only authentic

statement which the Court can consider is the statement made in the Court.

While writing judgment, the Court, after going through the contradictions, has to

arrive at a conclusion whether the improvements and contradictions were so

material so as to dis-believe the witness or not. At this stage, it is not possible to

Bail Appln. 1588/2010 Page 2 Of 3 give this finding. The applicant/petitioner is involved in the case of culpable

homicide and looking at his role, I do not consider it a fit case for grant of bail.

The application is hereby dismissed.

December 10, 2010                                 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J
AK




Bail Appln. 1588/2010                                                     Page 3 Of 3