Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad 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