Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras High Court

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