The credibility of eye witnesses and the weight given to their testimonies in criminal cases.

MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

1. It is the dream of every parent to provide the best of education to his child. When parents are not educated enough to guide them in studies, they depend on Coaching Centres so that the child can perform better. Resultantly, Coaching Centres have mushroomed. Often, these centres are barely adequate with poor infrastructure. They are commercialized, and charge considerable fees. Parents turn to these in the absence of alternatives, as they are in the neighbourhood, and save time, expense and commuting costs.

2. PW-5 Paramjit Kaur was one such parent whose husband was working in Abu Dhabi. She was staying in a flat in Patel Nagar, New Delhi for the purpose of her two children’s education. The appellant, Ravi Ghai was running the “Vidyarthi Coaching Centre” in Patel Nagar. The deceased “S” aged 15 years (name of the deceased is being withheld to conceal her identity and she is hereinafter referred to as “S”) was a student of class-X in a prestigious school in New Delhi. Since a coaching facility was in the vicinity of her resident, “S” was sent to the appellant’s centre. She was also getting home tuitions from the appellant.

3. On 02.09.2001 DD No.4A was recorded at Police Station Patel Nagar at 10:55 AM that from the second floor of the Vidyarthi Coaching Centre, the owner of the centre and a girl had fallen down. Their condition was described to be serious and they were taken to the hospital. The DD was handed over to SI Kashmiri Lal, who with Ct. Sunil left for the spot. The photographer was informed. The SHO too reached the spot in his official vehicle.

4. When SI Kashmiri Lal reached the spot, he came to know that the injured Ravi and “S” had been taken to RML hospital. After leaving the Constable to guard the spot, he left for the hospital and collected the MLC of both injured. “S” was declared “brought dead”. Ravi, who was also admitted in the hospital, though declared “fit for statement”, preferred not to make any statement.

5. When the SHO returned the spot, he met Master Love Sahani, a student of 6th standard, who claimed to be an eye witness of the incident. He made a statement (Ex.PW-3/A) to the effect that in the morning at about 10:30 AM during the commercial break of a TV serial, he was standing in the balcony. He saw that on the roof top of a house in front, near the water tank, a girl was weeping and Ravi uncle, who gave tuitions, was standing beside her. Ravi uncle pushed the girl and she fell down. He shouted “uncle kya kar rahe ho”. On hearing this, his father also came into the balcony. Ravi uncle started climbing down the water pipe. When his father said “Ravi kya ho gaya hai”; he fell down. On the basis of this statement, the FIR No.591/2001 under Section 302 IPC was registered against the appellant.

6. During the investigation, the crime scene was photographed. The dead body was sent for postmortem. The statements of material witnesses were recorded. After interrogating Ravi Ghai, his disclosure statement was recorded. At his behest, some books, notebooks and love letters were recovered from his coaching centre, which also included the replies to the letters; which had been written at the back of such love letters in his handwriting. The admitted and questioned handwritings were sent to CFSL for comparison. After completion of investigation, the chargesheet was filed.

7. The Trial Court, after framing the charge, examined 24 witnesses. After recording the statement of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C and that of his two defence witnesses, the Trial Court found the testimonies of the eye witnesses to be without blemish and by the judgment dated 02.07.2008 and the order on sentence dated 04.07.2008, while convicting him under Section 302 IPC, sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant has impugned the judgment and the order on sentence.

8. The appellant has impugned the judgment on the ground that, the