Hostile Witness Testimony Admissible if Corroborated by Independent Evidence: Punjab and Haryana High Court

In a significant decision the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed appeals challenging the life imprisonment of three individuals convicted of murder under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC. The court held that the testimonies of hostile witnesses, if corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, can be relied upon to uphold a conviction.

The appeals arose from the brutal daylight killing of Chand Masih on November 13, 2016, in Amritsar. The incident stemmed from an alleged premeditated conspiracy, with the accused seeking revenge for a prior elopement involving their family members. The prosecution alleged that the appellants—Sahil alias Sallu, Rahul alias Lahla, and George Masih—attacked the victim with sharp weapons in a public space.

During the trial, key prosecution witnesses, including the victim’s younger brother (PW1) and mother (PW2), turned hostile and denied their earlier statements. The trial court, however, convicted the appellants based on their initial depositions, corroborated by medical evidence and other supporting facts. The appellants challenged the conviction, alleging discrepancies in the investigation and witness testimonies.

Key Legal Issues:

•    Whether the earlier statements of hostile witnesses (PW1 and PW2) could be relied upon to convict the accused, despite their subsequent retraction in court.

•    Whether the medical evidence corroborated the earlier depositions of the hostile witnesses and supported the prosecution's case.

•    Whether the accused acted with a premeditated intent to kill the victim, substantiating the charges under Sections 302, 120-B, and 149 IPC.

•    Whether the delay in lodging the FIR undermined the prosecution's case.

The court noted that PW1 (the complainant) and PW2 (the deceased’s mother) had given detailed statements during the initial trial implicating the accused, but later resiled from those statements. The court relied on the Supreme Court's rulings in Hemudan Nanbha Gadhvi v. State of Gujarat (2019) and Radha Mohan Singh v. State of U.P. (2006), holding that:

"The testimony of a hostile witness cannot be discarded in toto. It can be relied upon to the extent it is corroborated by other evidence."

The court emphasized that the earlier testimonies of PW1 and PW2 aligned with the medical and forensic evidence, making them admissible despite their subsequent retraction.

The medical reports presented by PW3 (Dr. Manpreet Kaul) and PW13 (Dr. Madhuri Raina) confirmed multiple incised wounds inflicted by sharp-edged weapons on the victim’s head, arm, and back of the ear. These injuries corresponded to the description of the assault provided by PW1 in his initial deposition.

"The medical evidence conclusively corroborates the sequence of events narrated by PW1 in his earlier testimony and supports the prosecution's case," the bench observed.

The court ruled that the appellants acted with a clear common intention to murder the deceased, as evidenced by their pre-planned gathering at the crime scene armed with sharp weapons.

"The appellants acted in a coordinated manner, inflicting fatal injuries on the victim. The sequence of events and the injuries inflicted establish a premeditated conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt," the court held.

The FIR in the case was registered approximately seven hours after the incident. The appellants argued that this delay rendered the investigation unreliable. However, the court rejected this contention, citing Radha Mohan Singh v. State of U.P. (2006), where the Supreme Court held that mere delay in lodging an FIR does not invalidate the prosecution's case if the explanation for the delay is reasonable.

"The delay in registering the FIR was satisfactorily explained by the complainant, who was preoccupied with taking the injured to the hospital and subsequently meeting the police," the court noted.

The court dismissed the appeals and affirmed the trial court’s judgment, observing:

"This court has a bounden duty to deliver justice to the victim while balancing the rights of the accused. The overwhelming evidence, including corroborated medical records and the sequence of events, establishes the appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt."

The court acquitted the appellants of charges under Sections 379-B and 201 IPC due to insufficient evidence regarding the alleged theft of Malaysian currency and the mobile phone.

This judgment reaffirms the principle that hostile witness testimonies are not rendered entirely inadmissible if corroborated by other reliable evidence. The court’s reliance on medical and forensic evidence underscores the importance of independent corroboration in ensuring justice. By upholding the conviction despite the witnesses turning hostile, the court sent a strong message about the seriousness of witness tampering and its impact on the criminal justice system.

Date of Decision: November 11, 2024