Peeter @ Peeter Arivazhakan vs The State Represented By on 22 October, 2019
24. One more judgment that can be relied upon is the judgment of this
Court in Rasukannu @ Rengasamy v. State reported in (2018) 1 MLJ (Crl)
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.92 seconds)Sampath vs State Rep By
Obviously, PW1 and PW2 had already turned hostile and it is possible that they would have exerted pressure on the victim and it is also possible that the accused had utilized the time and won over her. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued directions that cross examinations must be done on a day to day basis and where a witness is cross examined after a long interval of time from the date of chief examination and circumstances are available for the purpose of believing that he or she might have been won over by the other side, such evidence can be disregarded/eschewed. Useful references can be made to the judgments reported in 2015 (2) LW Crl. 458 in the case of Dharmaraj Vs. The Inspector of Police, Athanakottai Police Station, Pudhukottai District and in the case of Rasukannu @ Rengasamy and another Vs. State through the Inspector of Police, Alangudi Police Station, Pudukkottai District reported in 2018 (1) MLJ Crl. 306. This Court is clearly convinced that the hapless victim was won over within 6 days by her family and by the petitioner/accused and therefore, the Courts below have rightly disregarded the evidence of the victim given during the cross examination.
Anandaraj vs The State Rep By on 11 March, 2026
458 and Rasukannu @ Rengasamy and
another v. State reported in 2018 (1) MLJ (Crl.) 306. Insofar as PW5 and
PW6 are concerned, they are not the eyewitnesses and they had only gone to
the hospital after the incident.
1