LI Network
Published on: December 25, 2023 at 21:51 IST
In a recent judgment, the Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld a murder conviction, asserting that the statement of a complainant, even if he turns hostile during cross-examination, can be relied upon if sufficient evidence supports the prosecution’s version.
The division bench, comprising Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Justice Gurbir Singh, highlighted the importance of corroborative evidence.
The case involved a complainant who initially claimed that the accused had shot his daughter in the head. However, during cross-examination conducted seven months later, the complainant denied the incident.
The Court expressed concern over the delayed cross-examination, stating that it provided ample time for the accused and supporters to influence the complainant.
The bench emphasized that despite the complainant’s prevarication, reliance could be placed on the part of his statement corroborated by other evidence.
In this case, the prosecution supported the complainant’s version with evidence of the weapon’s recovery at the accused’s instance and a report from the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL).
The Court observed that the complainant’s evidence, while inconsistent during cross-examination, could still be considered valid, given the corroborative evidence.
The accused had confessed immediately after the incident, leading to the recovery of the weapon. The court cited the admissibility of the accused’s disclosure statement under Section 27 of the law.
Rejecting arguments about the delay in cross-examination and the lack of an independent witness during the recovery of the weapon, the court asserted that the complainant’s evidence, supported by medical findings and FSL reports, held merit.
Additionally, the court addressed the admissibility of the FSL report without the accused’s opportunity for cross-examination, referencing a recent Supreme Court decision that emphasized the court’s reliance on expert reports when cross-examination opportunities were not applicable.
In conclusion, the Court affirmed that when sufficient evidence supports the prosecution’s version, a complainant’s statement, even if inconsistent during cross-examination, can be relied upon.
The accused’s attempt to influence the complainant during the delay in cross-examination did not diminish the evidentiary value of the corroborated statements.
The plea against the conviction in the murder case, which had sentenced the accused to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 2 years under Section 25 of the Arms Act, was dismissed by the Court.
Case Title: Shokeen v. State of Haryana
