Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

High Court Rules Incomplete Statements Without Cross-Examination Not Admissible as Evidence in Acquittal Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu has held that incomplete statements of witnesses, without the opportunity for cross-examination, cannot be considered as legal evidence. The judgment, pronounced on June 8, 2023, pertains to an acquittal case (CRAA No. 189/2014) wherein the State of J&K appealed against the respondents’ acquittal by the trial court.

The court emphasized the importance of cross-examination, stating, “Incomplete statements of the prosecutrix and the complainant, in the absence of their cross-examination, could not be treated as legal evidence, nor could be relied upon to fasten any criminal liability upon the respondents.” This ruling underscores the fundamental principle that witnesses must be given a reasonable opportunity for cross-examination by the adverse party, and the court has no choice but to disregard testimony from witnesses who were not subjected to cross-examination.

The case Involved allegations of sexual assault made by the mother of the prosecutrix against the first respondent, who was a police inspector. The trial court had charged the first respondent under Sections 376/201 RPC, while the second respondent was charged under Section 376/511 RPC. However, due to various circumstances, including the death of the prosecutrix and the complainant’s unavailability, they could not be cross-examined during the trial.

The High Court also considered the delay in lodging the FIR, which the prosecution failed to explain. The court observed that such a delay, coupled with discrepancies in the statements of the prosecutrix and the complainant, weakened the prosecution’s case. The judgment stated, “Contradictory statements made by the prosecutrix and the complainant in their chief examination, in the absence of cross-examination, could not be treated as a legal evidence, nor could be relied upon to sustain conviction of the respondents.”

The High Court upheld the trial court’s acquittal verdict, endorsing its well-reasoned judgment. This decision underscores the importance of cross-examination as a fundamental aspect of fair trial and highlights the necessity of presenting complete and reliable evidence to establish criminal liability.

This ruling sets a precedent for future cases, clarifying the requirements for admissible evidence and reaffirming the principle of cross-examination as an essential component of the criminal justice system.

Date of Decision: June 8, 2023

State of J&K vs Davinder Kumar 

Latest Legal News