“11. Coming to the plea that the contradictions noticed by the trial court were ocular vis-à-vis the medical evidence, we find on a reading of the judgment it is not to be so. Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short “the Evidence Act”) applies when the same person makes two contradictory statements. It is not permissible in law to draw adverse inference because of alleged contradictions between one prosecution witness vis-à-vis statements of other witnesses. It is not open to the court to completely demolish the evidence of one witness by referring to the evidence of other witnesses. The witness can only be contradicted in terms of Section 145 of the Evidence Act by his own previous statement and not with the statement of any other witness. (See Mohanlal Gangaram Gehani v. State of Maharashtra [(1982) 1 SCC 700: 1982 SCC (Cri) 334: AIR 1982 SC 839] .) As was held in the said case, Section 145 applies only to cases where the same person makes two contradictory statements either in different proceedings or in two different stages of a proceeding. If the maker of a statement is sought to be contradicted, his attention should be drawn to his previous statement under Section 145 of the Evidence Act only. Section 145 has no application where a witness is sought to be contradicted not by his own statement but by the statement of another witness”
