any sugesstion of impact of PW1 cross.
PW2 in his chief said that PW1 is her mother and she illetrate so he hd written police complaint
PW1 has already been examined-in-chief and cross-examined before this Hon’ble Court and during her cross-examination, PW1 clearly stated that she is illiterate. in chief examination, PW1 gave a clear and consistent statement confirming the contents of Ex.P1 and narrated the incident in detail, including that her statement was recorded by the police. She also confirmed her illiteracy during the incident period.
During the cross-examination, PW1 was seated in the witness box, and the learned defense counsel waved a paper from a distance, without showing paper to PW1 or bringing it within her clear view or explaining their contents in simple terms. The defense counsel further used legal terminology and asked question while merely waving documents from a distance without reading it aloud or explaining them in simple language understandable to her in layman's terms, despite being fully aware that PW1 is an illiterate person and senior citizen. This style of questioning caused PW1 to become confused, and she ended up saying that she could not read and did not know since she never read any document being illiterate.
As a result, the following misleading sentences were recorded:
I. I do not know what are the content of Ex.P1. I am unable to say police examine me and recorded my statement after lodging of Ex.P1.
II. I am unable to remember whether I mention in Ex.P1 in respect of the Accused threatened us dire consequences when I approached the panchayat elders.
III. I do not know whether I mentioned in Ex.P1 the accused told me that our house plot is located in different place.
IV. I unable to say whether the police examine me and recorded my statement after lodging of Ex.P1. Police did not call me and accompanied me, conducted inquiry Infront the house of Komuraiah.
V. I don’t know the boundaries of my registered plots which are marked as Ex.P6 and Ex.P7.
