Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Use of ‘Absconding’ in Employment Context Not Defamatory Per Se, But A Privileged Communication Under Exception 7 of Section 499 IPC: Allahabad High Court Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case Patta Without SDM’s Prior Approval Is Void Ab Initio And Cannot Be Cancelled – It Never Legally Existed: Allahabad High Court Natural Guardian Means Legal Guardian: Custody Cannot Be Denied to Father Without Strong Reason: Orissa High Court Slams Family Court for Technical Rejection Affidavit Is Not a Caste Certificate: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Zila Panchayat Member's Election for Failing Eligibility Under OBC Quota Confession Recorded By DCP Is Legally Valid Under KCOCA – Bengaluru DCP Holds Rank Equivalent To SP: Karnataka High Court Difference of Opinion Cannot End in Death: Jharkhand High Court Commutes Death Sentence in Maoist Ambush Killing SP Pakur and Five Policemen Mere Presence Of Beneficiary During Execution Does Not Cast Suspicion On Will: Delhi High Court Litigants Have No Right to Choose the Bench: Bombay High Court Rules Rule 3A Is Mandatory, Sends Writ to Kolhapur Testimony Must Be of Sterling Quality: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Grandfather in Rape Case, Citing Unnatural Conduct and Infirm Evidence Cheating and Forgery Taint Even Legal Funds: No Safe Haven in Law for Laundered Money: Bombay High Court Final Maintenance Is Not Bound by Interim Orders – Section 125 Determination Must Be Based on Real Evidence: Delhi 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