Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

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