ROHIT KUMAR @ ROHIT GULERIA vs STATE OF PUNJAB

AMIT RANA 2026.05.26 18:35 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judgement/order CRR-1631-2023 2 as PW1 and was cross-examined at length. In his cross-examination, a specific question was put to the witness that in the non-consent memo, it has no where been mentioned that the contents were read over to the accused and after admitting the contents, he signed the same. He volunteered that the contents were read over to the accused and he signed in English. Even, a specific suggestion was put to Satish Kumar SI that it is incorrect to suggest that the consent or non-consent memo does not bear the signature of Rohit Kumar accused. Further, the following specific suggestions were put to the witness:- “It is incorrect to suggest that the recovery memo of car does not bear the signature of Rohit Kumar as well as the information memo does not bear the signature of Rohit Kumar and even, the personal does not bears the signature. The disclosure statement was written at the place of recovery and the alleged place of recovery. It is in my handwritting. It is incorrect to suggest that accused never made any such disclosure statement or the accused never put his signatures over the s