Help me
Rubeena
(Querist) 29 June 2016
This query is : Resolved
I lodged an FRI under IpC 294 against one boy who was iritating me by his calls n texts via different numbers....then somehow the case is running in court....now there are three witness who signed up there on FIR...one of my them is my father...the other one is ma couzn bro n last but not the least is ma couzn broz friend...ma father has alrdy given his statement in court...now ma couzn bro is also ready to pen down his statment....but his friend is not ready to give his statement...coz he signed on FIR coz ma couzn bro shared ma prblem wd him....now plz telme is it possible to solve ma case only on the statment of ma fathwr n couzn brother???? Plz help me
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 29 June 2016
Do not put query in sms language.
This is a lawyers forum and a minimum courtesy is expected.
Modify your query on aforesaid terms.
Rubeena
(Querist) 29 June 2016
I am really sorry sir please help me.I lodged FIR against one guy who was irritating me by his calls n texts via differnt numbers.now the case is in court under IPC 294.My FIR had three witnesses, one is my father n other is ma cousin bro n his friend.My cousin brother's friend does not know anything, while lodging FIR SHO asks for witness and my cousin brother shares my problem with his friend and he put downs his signature on FIR. The thing is we were unware about the fact that the case will be dragged in court.Now problem is my cousin brother's friend is not ready to give his statment.Please tellme is there any way to solve the case or is it possible to solve the case on my father's n cousin brothers statement?
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 29 June 2016
Since his nae is appearing in charge sheet he will have to appear in court and given his statements.
There is no other way out as if he avoids appearance then the court would issue warrant of arrest.
You can train him what to state in court.
Rubeena
(Querist) 29 June 2016
Sir the problem is tomorrow is date of hearing n that other witness is in dubai from last one year.Please give me some solution so that the case will wind up tomorrow. I physiologically get affected by all this.please sir help me.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 29 June 2016
Repeated query:
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/IPC-294-605536.asp
Siddharth Dev
(Expert) 30 June 2016
in Buta Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 26 March, 1991
(Supreme Court of India
Buta Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 26 March, 1991
Equivalent citations: AIR 1991 SC 1316, 1991 CriLJ 1464, 1991 (1) SCALE 597, (1991) 2 SCC 612
Author: A Ahmadi
Bench: A Ahmadi, V Ramaswamy, K Ramaswamy)
Supreme Court of India observed as;
7. DW 1, though named as a prosecution witness, was dropped without proper explanation. He was perhaps the only independent witness. He was cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor, but nothing could be brought out in his cross-examination to doubt his testimony. The evidence of this witness stands corroborated by the find of blood near the 'dera' of the appellant. The recovery memo shows that blood stained earth was picked up from near the tubewell of appellant Buta Singh. This is also clear from the evidence of PW 9 - Bal Mukund, the Investigating Officer, who admitted that blood stained earth was collected from a distance of about four or five karams (approximately 15-20 feet) from the tubewell. Therefore, the find of blood near the tubewell supports the defence version and the evidence of DW 1. No blood was found from the field where the occurrence is stated by the prosecution to have occurred. If the incident had taken place there, some traces of the incident would certainly have been found from the field. The prosecution has not explained the presence of blood near the tubewell of the appellant and the absence thereof in the field. The defence version, therefore, finds corroboration from this objective evidence also. Therefore, apart from the evidence of DW 1, the find of blood from near the tubewell is a factor which the prosecution was obliged to explain more so because it corroborates the defence version. If the defence version has to be rejected, this factor which weighs in favour of the defence ought to have been explained as an innocuous circumstance not affecting the genesis of the prosecution case.
Dr J C Vashista
(Expert) 05 July 2016
Well advised by experts.
Now the case is a "State" case and you need not bother, which is the responsibility of prosecution department.
Learned Experts,
Since case of author is already pending and being contested by complainant/author vigorously, she is availing facility of Public Prosecution, besides this she can hire services of a local lawyer, if she still feel so. Therefore, the experts need not mention/quote citation, which a layman may not follow ratio of the judgment.
