Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.42 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
P.Sanjeeva Rao vs State Of A.P on 2 July, 2012
11. Ld. counsel for the accused contended that as per the
law, part of the evidence cannot be read and in the present case, the
further cross examination of the most crucial witness i.e.
complainantcumvictimcumsole eye witness PW2 Victim was
deferred and it could not be completed and therefore, the entire
evidence of PW2 victim could not be read. Ld. counsel for the
accused relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
in P. Sanjeeva Rao Vs. State of A.P. AIR 2012 SC 2242 wherein it
has been laid down that "It is trite that the credibility of witnesses
whether in a civil or criminal case can be tested only when the
testimony is put through the fire of crossexamination.
Juwar Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 February, 1971
13. Keeping in view the aforesaid reasoning and
considering the fact that PW2 Victim i.e. complainant cum victim
cum sole eye witness was examined and partly cross examined on
13.02.2012. Further cross examination of PW2 Victim was deferred
as Ld. counsel for the accused wants to put some documents to the
witness of which certified copies should be obtained by him. But,
further cross examination of PW2 Victim could not take place for
the past three years. Although, considering the fact that PW2
Victim settled the matter with the accused before the Ld. Mediation
Centre on 22.01.2014 without seeking permission of the Court to
compound the offence. Also, thereafter the complainant became
untraceable as despite several notices to the complainant for the past
one and half year, complainant has became untraceable as per the
report of the DCP. So, it shows that the evidence of the most crucial
witness PW2 Victim i.e. complainant cum victim cum sole eye
witness is incomplete and so, the entire evidence of PW2 Victim
could not be read as per law. Keeping in view Article 21 of the
Constitution of India and the basic Canons of Criminal
Jurisprudence which mandates that for the right of fair trial as a
Fundamental Right, accused must be given the right of
cross examination of the witness. Relying upon the Full Bench
Judgment of Hon'ble Pepsu High Court in The State Vs. Baldev
Page No. 9
FIR No.478/07 State Vs. Satish @ Chatru PS:Rajouri Garden
Kishan 1953 Cri.L.J.51 (Pepsu), and relying upon the Judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Juwar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of
M.P. 1980 Cri.L.J.418 and also relying upon the latest Judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in P. Sanjeeva Rao Vs. State of A.P.
(Supra) wherein it has been consistently laid down that "Courts
should not read the evidence of a witness if the opportunity to
cross examine the said witness is not given to the accused and the
Court should discard the evidence of said witness." Also, as per the
criminal law, it is a clear preposition that the evidence of a witness
should be read as a whole and not in parts. Since, in the present case
the evidence of PW2 Victim is not complete as the further
cross examination of PW2 Victim could not be completed. So, it
proves that the evidence of PW2 Victim is incomplete and hence,
could not be read and so the evidence of PW2 Victim is hereby
discarded. This fact throws doubt on the prosecution story. Also, no
other eye witness has been examined by the prosecution to prove its
case. Thus, prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt. Also, no specific role has been alleged against the
accused. There is no incriminating evidence against the accused. All
these aforesaid facts throws doubt on the prosecution story. The
benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused.
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1