#Witness Archives - Prime Legal

27 Feb

Producing the documents during cross examination is permissible under law: Supreme Court

blog, Blog #CPC, #crossexamination, #HighCourt, #law, #parties, #SupremeCourt, #Witness

The case of Mohammed Abdul Wahid Vs Nilofer & Anr. (Special Leave Petition (Civil)No.14445 of 2021), there were two contradictory judgements by the high court of Bombay single bench. The judgements address the difference between a party to a suit and a witness in a suit, as well as when it is permissible to produce documents directly during cross-examination. The court determined that a witness and a party to a suit are not the same, and evidence cannot be produced during cross-examination. On appeal, the division bench upheld the decision. The current petition concerns the validity of Bombay High Court judgements.

The court concluded that neither a witness nor a party to a suit serves a different purpose in the witness box and that Order XVI Rule 21’s “so far as it is applicable” clause does not suggest otherwise. It was noted that neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendant is prohibited from appearing before the court to present evidence by the term “witness.”

In regards to the production of evidence, the court decided that the parties to the lawsuit would also profit from the freedom to produce documents for the two purposes of cross-examining witnesses and refreshing one’s memory. The court noted that if these documents are not used to properly ask questions of and receive answers from either party in a lawsuit, the other party may not be able to adequately prove their case, which could seriously jeopardise the proceedings. As a result, the proposition that the law distinguishes between a party to a suit and a witness for the purposes of evidence is invalid. It is well established law that what is not pleaded cannot be argued, because the other party must be aware of the contours of the case in order to adjudicate it.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click here to read the judement

13 Feb

Conviction cannot be imposed based on statements made by untrustworthy witnesses: the Supreme Court

Prime Legal

blog, Blog #criminalappeal, #SupremeCourt, #Witness, conviction

Case title: State of Haryana vs Mohd. Yunus & Ors.

Case no.: Criminal Appeal No. 1307 of 2012

Decided on: 12.01.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice M.M Sundresh, Hon’ble Justice Prasant Kumar Mishra

FACTS OF THE CASE:

There are four accused who have faced trail for the commission of offence of murder. The trail court acquitted one of the accused and convicted the other three. The other three who are convicted went for appeal to the high court. The court rejected the appeal of two of the accused and reduced the charges of one of the accused named Mohd. Yunus. The current appeal is by the State, challenging the High Court’s decision to acquit Mohd. Yunus of charges under Section 302 of the IPC while convicting him under Section 323 of the IPC.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

Section 302 of the IPC states that a person who commits murder will face the death penalty. Section 34 of the IPC addresses common intention. When two or more people commit a criminal act with the same intention, all of them are liable.

Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with punishment for voluntarily causing harm. It states that anyone who intentionally causes harm to another person will face imprisonment.

APPELLANTS CONTENTION:

The appellant contended that the same set of evidence that was used to convict Mohd. Jamil, one of the accused, should have been considered when upholding Mohd. Yunus’ conviction for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. They contended that the High Court erred in acquitting Mohd. Yunus of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

The court determined in the second trial that both of the prosecution’s star witnesses should be disbelieved because their statements are contradictory, the facts are twisted, and improvements are made. For a trial under Section 302 IPC, if a witness is branded as untrustworthy for allegedly twisting the facts and making a contrary statement, it is not safe to impose conviction based on such a statement. When there is an attempt to falsely implicate one accused person, a statement made by such an eyewitness cannot be trusted without strong corroboration. As a result, the State of Haryana’s criminal appeal challenging Mohd. Yunus’ acquittal under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC has been dismissed.

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click here to read judgement

30 Jan

Testimony of Untrustworthy witness leads to overturning conviction in 1999 murder case: Supreme Court

Prime Legal

Blog #SupremeCourt, #Witness

Case Title: State of Haryana v. Mohd. Yunus & Ors.

Case No: Criminal Appeal No(s).1307 of 2012

Decided on: 12^th January, 2024

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH AND HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA

Facts of the Case

In this particular case, four individuals (referred to as A1, A2, A3, and A4) were accused of assaulting and beating the deceased. A1, A2, and A3 were found guilty by the trial court for offenses under Sections 302 and 323, along with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. A4, who had initially evaded authorities, later surrendered before the Trial Court, leading to a separate trial where he was acquitted of the charges.

Upon the appeal by A1, A2, and A3, the High Court dismissed the appeals regarding A3 and A2. However, the High Court partially acquitted A1 of the charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC while maintaining his conviction for the offense under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. A1 was sentenced for the time already served. Meanwhile, A3 passed away, A1 received a partial conviction, and A4 was discharged, leaving the conviction of A2 as the only one that remained.

The State of Haryana filed the current criminal appeal against the High Court’s order, challenging the partial conviction of A1 under Sections 323 r/w 34 and seeking to contest the acquittal for the murder charges. Additionally, A2 filed a separate criminal appeal, contesting his conviction under Section 302 IPC.

Issue

The key issue in this case revolves around the credibility of prosecution evidence, leading to the overturning of A2’s conviction and the sustaining of A1’s conviction under specific sections of the Indian Penal Code.

Legal Provision

Section 302 of IPC prescribes the punishment for murder: “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. It states that whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person shall be punished with imprisonment, which may extend to one year, or a fine to one thousand rupees, or both.

Court’s analysis and decision

The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of an individual in a murder case dating back to 1999. Expressing skepticism towards the testimonies provided by the prosecution witnesses, the Court nullified the conviction for offenses under Sections 302 (murder) and 323 (simple hurt) along with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.

The Bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Prashant Kumar Mishra aligned with the Trial Court’s determination that both crucial prosecution witnesses had altered and improved their statements. The Court emphasized that reliance cannot be placed on statements that exhibit contradictions, factual distortions, and enhancements.

The court ultimately concluded that serious doubts surround the credibility of the prosecution’s evidence due to the manipulation of facts and the introduction of improvements. Consequently, the court determined that it is not prudent to convict A2 for the offense under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC based on the statements provided by such eyewitness. As a result, the court overturned the contested order and judgment from the High Court, which had convicted A2.

Furthermore, the court dismissed the appeal filed by the State of Haryana, which sought to challenge the exoneration of A1 from charges framed under Section 34 r/w Section 34 IPC. However, the court upheld the conviction of A1 under Section 323 r/w Section 34 IPC.

Written by- Afshan Ahmad

Click here to read the judgement