Inconsistencies in witness statements can raise doubts about the credibility of the evidence and influence the court's decision on bail applications.

JUDGMENT

V. G. Bisht, J. - The present application has been moved by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Crime No.446 of 2019 registered with Police Station Talegaon-Dabhade, District Pimpri-Chinchwad, for offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2 It is the case of prosecution that on 15th April 2019 Kunda Namdev Gawde, Assistant Police Inspector, under instructions of Police Inspector Narayan Pawar visited Pawna river where she found a human body floating in the river. The said body was of Mangesh Bhagwat, husband of the informant.

3 It appears that on 20th April 2019 informant lodged the First Informant Report (FIR) suspecting that it was applicant who on account of previous enmity might have killed her husband.

4 Mr.Aniket Nikam, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that it is only on the basis of apprehension, name of present applicant came to be given to the police by the informant. The learned counsel also invited my attention to the so called statements of eye witnesses and submitted how they differ from each other. There are no criminal antecedents. In such circumstances, the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail, argued learned counsel.

5 Mr.Ameet Palkar, learned APP, on the other hand, opposed submissions by inviting my attention to the Advance Death Certificate and submitted that the cause of death was head injury and fracture skull with multiple bone fragments. The learned APP then pointed out the statements of eye witnesses namely, Ashwini Sachin Meshram, Sachin Bhauram Meshram and Sachin Sarjerao Gaikwad and vehemently submitted that all these witnesses had seen the applicant and other accused assaulting the husband (deceased) of informant. Motive was also there as there was previous enmity between the deceased and the applicant. For all these reasons, there being no merit in the application, the same is liable to be rejected, argued learned APP.

6 The statement of wife of the deceased is quite formal in nature and she simply has expressed apprehension that it is the applicant who might have killed her husband on account of previous enmity. What is necessary is to go through the statements of eye witnesses namely, Ashwini Sachin Meshram, Sachin Bhauram Meshram and Sachin Sarjerao Gaikwad. The prosecution has heavily relied on the statements of these witnesses. At the same time, learned counsel for the applicant has also assailed these statements as the statements inter-se are quite contradictory in its nature.

7 First statement is that of Ashwini Sachin Meshram. According to her, on 10th April 2019 at about 12.00 hours in the night, she and her husband Sachin were sleeping in the house. As she heard screaming, she got up and went near the window. She also found her husband seeing through the window and in the light of street lamp they saw accused Shrikant Vishnu Murhe (applicant), Pravin @ Barkya Ramesh Shedge and Swapnil Hridaynath Kale assaulting a person. They also saw accused Pravin and Swapnil had pinned down Mangesh @ Dadya Ananta Bhagwat (deceased) and applicant hitting with a cement pole on the head of the deceased. At the same time, accused Swapnil Kale and Pravin Shedge were assaulting by means of a stone on the head of the deceased. Thereafter all three ran away. She and her husband then went to sleep.

8 It is her further statement that after 2/3 days, accused Swapnil Kale visited her house and asked her whether they had seen anything from the window of her house and if at all they had seen anything, then if they revealed it to anybody, he would kill them. Therefore, having been frightened, they did not reveal. Lastly, she states that since police were enquiring with the locals and the wife of deceased was persistently asking her, she and her husband decided to reveal everything to the police, come what may.

9 A plain reading of statements of this witness gives anything but satisfaction. Assuming for the sake of argument that this