The Punjab and Haryana High Court while dismissing an appeal filed against the conviction under Section 302 IPC held that when there is ample evidence to support the prosecution's account, the statement of the complainant remains credible, even if the complainant becomes uncooperative during cross-examination.
Brief Facts:
In this particular case, the petitioner is accused of allegedly shooting the complainant's daughter during a neighborhood ceremony. The incident occurred when the complainant objected to the petitioner's vulgar dance at the event. The Additional Session Judge found the petitioner guilty, leading to this appeal where the petitioner contested the judgment.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The counsel for the petitioner contends that the accused has been falsely implicated in the current case, emphasizing the lack of any evidence connecting him to the alleged incident. It is argued that, of the two prosecution witnesses, one completely withdrew their testimony, and the complainant, though initially testifying against the appellant, turned hostile during cross-examination, failing to support the prosecution's case.
The learned counsel submitted that the alleged recovery of a pistol, live cartridge, and empty cartridge, supposedly at the accused's disclosure, should not be given credibility. The argument suggests that it is easy for the police to attribute a country-made pistol or cartridges to an accused. The unexplained reason for the accused supposedly keeping a used cartridge, as claimed in the recovery, is highlighted.
Furthermore, the counsel contended that although the trial court heavily relied on the FSL report regarding the ballistic examination of the purportedly recovered country-made pistol, these reports should not be considered valid as the appellant was not given any opportunity to cross-examine the expert.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel for the respondent argued that this case appears to be one where the appellant has successfully persuaded the complainant and the witnesses. It is emphasized that, according to established principles, the testimony of a hostile witness can still be considered. It is noted that a portion of the statement, deemed credible and supported by other evidence, can be relied upon. The counsel from the state further stated that Section 293 of the Criminal Procedure Code explicitly states that the report of Government Scientific Experts, as specifically defined in subsection (4), can serve as evidence in any inquiry, trial, or other proceedings under the Criminal Procedure Code. The expert is not to be summoned at the mere request of the prosecution or defence but can be summoned only if the court deems it necessary in a given case. It is also argued that a special request for cross-examination by the accused is required to call the expert for cross-examination. Since no such request was made by the accused in this case, there is no basis to reject the expert's testimony, which provides substantial corroboration to the prosecution's case.
Observations of the Court:
The bench highlighted that the accused immediately confessed his guilt after the incident upon arrest, revealing the location of a concealed country-made pistol in a fodder room near his uncle's house during interrogation. Citing Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, the court noted that while an accused's entire statement to the police is inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26, the part leading to the discovery of items is admissible under Section 27. Dismissing the argument that no independent witness was present during the disclosure statement recording, the court pointed out that police officials, having no enmity with the accused, recovered the weapon as part of their duties.
The court also rejected the contention about the non-admissibility of the expert's report due to the accused not being given an opportunity for cross-examination. Reviewing the complainant's testimony, which was consistent with the initial version, and considering medical evidence, the court emphasized that the daughter's death resulted from a firearm injury. Referring to Santosh @ Bhure v. State (G.N.C.T.) of Delhi, where the Supreme Court overturned a High Court decision discarding a Government Expert report for lack of cross-examination, the court concluded that despite the complainant turning hostile during cross-examination, his statement could be relied upon due to sufficient corroborating evidence. The delay in cross-examination was attributed to the accused's success in influencing the complainant over seven months.
The decision of the Court:
In this case, considering all the observations made and the overall context of this case, the court dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Shokeen v. State of Haryana
Coram: Hon’ble Mr Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill & Hon’ble Mr Justice Gurbir Singh
Case No.: CRA-D-761-DB-2018
Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Mansur Ali, Mr. Chajju Khan and Mr. Imran Ali
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. S.S. Pannu
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
