Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to www.scribd.com

Scribd
Upload
85 views2 pages

Deposition

The document summarizes testimony from a witness in a court case. The witness was called to testify but claimed they did not know what two documents they had previously signed were for. The prosecution then treated the witness as hostile and cross-examined them, suggesting they were lying to help the accused persons.

Uploaded by

Bharath
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
85 views2 pages

Deposition

The document summarizes testimony from a witness in a court case. The witness was called to testify but claimed they did not know what two documents they had previously signed were for. The prosecution then treated the witness as hostile and cross-examined them, suggesting they were lying to help the accused persons.

Uploaded by

Bharath
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

1

IN THE COURT OF 5
TH
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
HASSAN.
SC No.134/2015
Witness Name Prakasha PW - 7
Father's Name Lakshmegowda CW - 6
Age 39 years
Occupation Driver
Residence Heddanahalli Village Duly sworn on:
28-12-2018
EXAMINATION IN CHIEF BY: LEARNED PP
I do not know PW-1 Chaya and also the accused persons who
are before this court. In the year 2014 I had visited Dudda PS for
my personal work and at that point of time, the concerned police had
obtained my signature to two documents. I do not know for what
purpose they had obtained my signature. Now I see the same and it
is mahazar dated 29.11.2014 and it is already marked as Ex.P.19 and
the signature of this witness is marked as Ex.P.19(b). I cannot
identify the motorbike. At the same time, the concerned police had
obtained my signature to another document. I do not know its
contents. Now I see the said mahazar and it is already marked as
Ex.P.20 and the signature of this witness is marked as Ex.P.20(b). I
cannot identify the car.
(At this stage learned Public Prosecutor prays to treat the
witness hostile. Perused the evidence, permitted to treat the witness
hostile.)
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY: SRI. LEARNED P.P.
It is not true to suggest that, on 29.11.2014, I was called to
the police station and in our presence, the motorbike bearing no.KA-
11-Q-6068 was recovered by drawing the mahazar as per Ex.P.19 and
even though I can identify the said motorbike and know the contents
of the mahazar, I am deposing falsely against the accused persons.
It is not true to suggest that, on the same day at about 1.00
p.m. and 1.30 p.m. another mahazar was drawn wherein a car
2

bearing no. KA-19-P-5308 was recovered as per Ex.P.20 and though I


can identify the said car and also know the contents of the mahazar,
I am deposing falsely to help the accused persons.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY: SRI.MNJ, ADVOCATE FOR ACCUSED:
Submits no cross examination.
RE EXAMINATION : NIL
(Dictated by me in the open
court)
R.O.I & C.

5
th
Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge,
Hassan.
Witness signature
Phaniveni*

You might also like