JUDGMENT - S.N. KHATRI, J.:---[The following portion of the judgment is made reportable as per the directions of His Lordship.]

x x x x x

13. We were distressed to note in the present case that the lower Court has not effectively controlled the cross-examination and allowed the defence to indulge in pointless and grilling cross-examination. Numberless contradictions-mostly in the form of omissions flood the record. The learned judge gives the impression of having completely abdicated his responsibility under the Explanation to section 162 Cri.P.C., to determine whether a particular omission was material enough to amount to a contradiction. This Explanation in express terms provides that an omission amounts to a contradiction, only, and only, if the same appears to the Court significant and otherwise relevant, having regard to the context in which it occurs and further the question whether or not any omission amounts to a contradiction in a particular context is a question of fact. Obviously it is the duty and obligation of the Court to decide this question, by applying the above test. The ambivalence exhibited by quite a few Judges to do their plain duty in this

Click Here to Read the rest of this document