SC Clarifies: Failure Of Conspiracy Charge Does Not Erase Individual Guilt In Bribery Traps

As rightly observed by the High Court, there was neither proof of demand nor acceptance by A1 but for the statement of PW1 that A2 demanded the bribe on behalf of A1. There can be no reliance placed on such statement made by the co-Accused and there can be no conviction entered into on that account. We are, however, inclined and persuaded to set aside the acquittal against A2 and restore the order of the Trial Court convicting him for the offence Under Section 7 of the PC Act; there being no conspiracy Under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code established.{Para 30}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. ... of 2026 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 12486 of 2025)

Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Baljeet Singh

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

K. Vinod Chandran and P.V. Sanjay Kumar, JJ.

Author: K. Vinod Chandran, J.

Citation: 2026 INSC 221,MANU/SC/0220/2026

 Decided On: 10.03.2026

Print Page

Supreme Court: Under which circumstances, evidence of hostile witness can be used to acquit accused?

8.4.2. Thus, the evidence of the hostile witness is admissible, once it gets strengthened with the help of other evidence. In Khujji (supra) and in Koli Lakhmanbhai Chanabhai (supra), it was held that it is open to the court to have a conviction upon the testimony of a hostile witness.

9. Therefore, when the testimony of a hostile witness is admissible subject to be feeded by corroboration and the conviction on that basis could be arrived at, the reverse is also true as a canon of appreciation of evidence. What necessarily implies is that as the evidence of a hostile witness can be used for convicting the accused, such evidence could indeed be applied and utilised also for the purpose of acquitting the accused, when what is testified by the hostile witness inspires credibility, when read with the other evidence on record, either ocular or documentary. The dictum would be that the testimony of a hostile witness or statement in the deposition of hostile witness could be properly employed to discredit the prosecution case and a conclusion of acquittal could well be supported through it and could be founded therein.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 2506 of 2026 

Talari Naresh Vs. The State of Telangana

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria, JJ.

Author: N.V. Anjaria, J.

Decided On: 13.05.2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 486,MANU/SC/0473/2026.

Print Page

Supreme Court: Revisional court can not set aside acquittal of accused relying on police or S 164 CRPC statement of witness if that witness has turned hostile to prosecution case

 It appears that the High Court relied upon the police statement of PW-7 recorded Under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure instead of his oral testimony before the trial court. {Para 74}

63. Section 162 Code of Criminal Procedure bars the use of statement of witnesses recorded by the police except for the limited purpose of contradiction of such witnesses as indicated therein. The statement made by a witness before the police Under Section 161(1) Code of Criminal Procedure can be used only for the purpose of contradicting such witness on what he has stated at the trial as laid down in the proviso to Section 162(1) Code of Criminal Procedure The statements Under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure recorded during the investigation are not substantive pieces of evidence but can be used primarily for the limited purpose : (i) of contradicting such witness by an Accused Under Section 145 of the Evidence Act; (ii) the contradiction of such witness also by the prosecution but with the leave of the Court; and (iii) the re- examination of the witness if necessary.

64. The court cannot suo motu make use of statements to police not proved and ask questions with reference to them which are inconsistent with the testimony of the witness in the court. The words 'if duly proved' used in Section 162 Code of Criminal Procedure clearly show that the record of the statement of witnesses cannot be admitted in evidence straightaway, nor can be looked into, but they must be duly proved for the purpose of contradiction by eliciting admission from the witness during cross-examination and also during the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer. The statement before the Investigating Officer can be used for contradiction but only after strict compliance with Section 145 of the Evidence Act, that is, by drawing attention to the parts intended for contradiction.

80. This Court explained that the trial courts cannot independently use statements made to the police that have not been proven, nor can it base its questions on such statements if they conflict with the witness's testimony in court. The phrase 'if duly proved' in Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure indicates that the statements of witnesses recorded by the police cannot be immediately admitted as evidence or examined. They must first be proven through eliciting admissions from the witness during cross-examination and also during the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer. While statements made to the Investigating Officer can be used for contradiction, this can only be done after strict compliance with Section 145 of the Evidence Act. This requires drawing attention to the specific parts of the statement intended for contradiction. This is what is required Under Section 145 of the Evidence Act but even where a witness is confronted by his previous statement and given an opportunity to explain that part of the statement that is put to him does not constitute substantive evidence.

81. There is a catena of decisions laying down the principle in law that the material elicited as contradiction by use of Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act is not substantive evidence. Even in regard to the statement recorded Under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by authorised Magistrate, it has been held accordingly. Therefore, the fact that the contradictions are proved through the investigating officers though the witnesses have denied having made such statements, does not translate the contradictions into substantive evidence. Unless there is substantive evidence, it cannot be acted upon legally particularly to base a conviction.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal Nos. 5560-5561 of 2024

Decided On: 29.01.2025

Mahabir and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

J.B. Pardiwala,  and R. Mahadevan, , JJ.

Author:  J.B. Pardiwala, J.

Citation MANU/SC/0122/2025.

Read full judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Bombay HC: How to appreciate evidence of eye witness of accident in motor accident claim petition when said witness was relative of claimant?

Second witness of the claimant is Balasaheb Bongane CW-3. He states that he was proceeding on his motorcycle and witnessed the offending jeep dashed against motor cycle of the deceased Dattarao. He states that, he noted jeep number and informed claimant no.3-Shailesh regarding the incident. In cross-examination, he admitted that he is relative of the claimants. He states that he noted number of offending vehicle after getting a pen from the owner of sugar cane juice shop. He states that he did not felt necessary to accompany deceased to the Hospital or he never informed police chowki or doctor regarding the vehicle number or incident. He never visited the police or gave his statement to the police. The Certified copy of his statement recorded in S.C.C. No.457 of 2018 is also placed on record of the Tribunal at Exhibit 15, wherein he states that he came to know about vehicle number from the mob gathered at the spot of accident. If the aforesaid evidence is taken into account, it is difficult to believe that accident occurred in presence of CW-3. Pertinently, CW-1 admits in his cross-examination that vehicle owner bears surname Karhale as claimants and he is resident of the village which is at a distance of 30 kilometers from village of the claimants. He admits that he had received information as to owner of the vehicle, but never disclosed it to any one prior to filing of the complaint. {Para 10}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

First Appeal No. 1631 of 2024 and Civil Application No. 7984 of 2024 in FA No. 1631 of 2024

Decided On: 21.02.2025

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangita and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.G. Chapalgaonkar, J.

 Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:4911, MANU/MH/0999/2025.

Read full judgment here: Click here. 

Print Page

Bombay HC: Whether motor accident claim tribunal should rely on evidence of witness who is declared hostile in criminal court relating to same accident?

Mr. Choudhary, submits that evidence of eye witness is absolutely unreliable. They are got up witnesses. Perusal of evidence of CW 2 Santosh shows that he runs sugarcane juice shop nearby the place of accident and claims himself to be an eye witness. However, during his cross- examination he admitted that he cannot read and write. There is no provision of electric light at the spot of accident. He did not disclose offending vehicle number to any one till police approached him. He cannot tell as to whether it was head on collision between two vehicles as he was at the distance. All these admissions coupled with fact that he turned hostile before the criminal court makes his statement unreliable.

{Para 9}

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

First Appeal No. 1631 of 2024 and Civil Application No. 7984 of 2024 in FA No. 1631 of 2024

Decided On: 21.02.2025

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sangita and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.G. Chapalgaonkar, J.

 Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:4911, MANU/MH/0999/2025.

Print Page

Whether the court can convict accused in pocso case if victim and her family members have turned hostile?

 • Law on the point of hostile witness

7. The principle on the point of considering the part of testimony of hostile witness comes into picture only when Court can separate:-

(a) the part which is deposed by the witness in favour of the prosecution and;

(b) the part which is not deposed in favour of the prosecution.

8. Furthermore, this principle will not come into picture, if the prosecution witness has totally resiled and not deposed a single fact thereby either implicating the accused or showing some connection with the accused. For e.g.- if the first informant/victim only admits signature on FIR but does not depose single fact in favour of the prosecution, then how the 'law on the point of hostile witness' will come into picture. Trial Court has not at all gone into all these issues and erroneously concluded about the guilt of the accused. I will deal with this principle vis-a-vis facts in latter part of my judgment.

• About view of this Court on hostile witness

36. As said above, when the evidence of hostile witness is appreciated, there are various angles. They can be summarized as follows :--

• Types of hostile witnesses

a. A witness has turned total hostile mean to say that he has not deposed single fact in chief examination appearing in previous police statement.

b. A witness has deposed few facts only but omitted to depose remaining facts as per his police statement.

c. A witness has not deposed a single fact but when he is cross examined by A.P.P. in charge, then he has admitted to suggestive questions put to him.

d. A witness has supported the prosecution case in its entirety but he has given answers damaging the earlier answers, when he is cross-examined on behalf of the defence.

37. If such are the possibilities faced by the criminal court, how one can make general proposition that 'evidence of hostile witness cannot be brushed aside totally'?. Ultimately it depends upon the extent of resiling from previous statement while giving evidence before the Court. The law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court on the point of 'evidentiary value to be attached to testimony of hostile witness' need to be applied on the set of facts and circumstances of each case.

38. On this background, it needs to be ascertained whether the trial court has assessed the evidence adduced before it properly. When the four witnesses including victim and her relatives have resiled from their previous statement and they were cross examined by the local prosecutor, the facts deposed by them can be summarized as follows :--

39. From the above reproduced references, what inference can be drawn? If we perused all the testimonies, one fact is very clear and that is-- all the witnesses have decided not to depose the facts stated by them before the police/Magistrate. Because otherwise why the police/Magistrate will mention all the facts in their statements unless those facts were stated to them. There is no reason for the police/Magistrate to state those facts on their own. But the question is will it be sufficient to convict the accused ? The Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined to apply the test of deciphering the facts supporting the prosecution case from the total facts deposed by the hostile witness. But what is important is after deciphering those facts, ultimately the Court has to consider what remains and how much weightage can be attached to those facts. The Court has to assess 'what inferences can be drawn'. So it will be unjustified to consider those facts and to convict the accused, without assessing its evidentiary value.

Whereas in the case involved in this appeal, the victim and her uncle eye witness have totally resiled from their version before the police. There is reason to believe that these witnesses do not want to depose before the Court the incidents narrated by them to the police. Though medical case papers are admitted, there has to be link between the medical findings and author of crime being the Appellant.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Appeal No. 990 of 2019

Decided On: 09.05.2024

Deelip Tatoba Raje Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.M. Modak, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/3173/2024.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

What is object of recording statement of victim by audio video means as per S 26(4) of Pocso Act ?

 • About digital evidence

28. When entire judgment is perused, the trial court has not made any comment about the digital evidence produced in the form of memory card. It contains recording of statement done by the police. There are special provisions by way of sub-section (4) to Section 26 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act about manner of recording the statement of the child. It should with the help of not only audio but by video recording means.

• Purpose of incorporating Section 26 (4) in the POCSO Act

29. Why Learned Judge has overlooked these provisions when it was followed by the investigating officer? Learned Judge has totally overlooked them and also overlooked the evidence adduced. Learned Judge could have verified the fact 'the child has really stated the facts forming part of statement reduced into writing'. There is definite purpose for inserting these provisions in the said Act. It is for the purpose having transparency. In future, the child should not make a grievance 'she has not stated particular portion but still it is appearing in her police statement'. At the same time such provision is also incorporated in order to have check on conduct of the victim in resiling from her police statement. Even in a given case, the accused can make use of this audio-video recording in case of inconsistency in between oral testimony and contents of police statement. The legislatures have incorporated such provision for the protecting the interest of all the concerned persons. I want to emphasis on this provision in the Act. There are training conducted in Maharashtra Judicial Academy on POCSO Act also. This Court expects the Judges be made aware of these provisions and let have deliberation on this aspect. When the trial Court Judges start recognizing the purpose of incorporating Section 25(6) in the said Act, there will be check on the hostility of the victims.

30. For all these reasons, the trial court ought to have made some comment on digital evidence. But it seems that this piece of evidence has slipped from the mind. There is reason to believe that the learned trial judge has only proceeded in the direction of convicting the Appellant.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Appeal No. 990 of 2019

Decided On: 09.05.2024

Deelip Tatoba Raje Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.M. Modak, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/3173/2024.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Whether trial court is justified in convicting Appellant only on basis of corroborative evidence particularly when there is no substantive evidence?

Criminal - Conviction - Appeal against - Sections 376(2)(f) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Sections 3, 4, 8 and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and Section 157 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Present appeal filed to challenge judgment of conviction passed against appellant herein for commission of offence punishable under Sections 376(2)(f) of IPC and Sections 3, 4, 8 and 12 of POCSO Act - Whether trial court is justified in convicting Appellant only on basis of corroborative evidence particularly when there is no substantive evidence - Held, statement under Section 164 of CrPC is not substantive evidence - Same can be utilized only to corroborate or contradict witness vis-a-vis statement made in court - Victim's reiterated statement can be used for corroboration under Section 157 of Evidence Act - If there are discrepancies between statement and oral evidence, it can be used for contradiction by defense - Likewise, if victim recants statement, it can be used for cross-examination by prosecution, as done in this case - Judicial officer's evidence cannot be relied upon to convict accused, as witness did not support prosecution's case on crucial points - Trial court cannot solely convict accused based on presumption -Presumptions only apply when foundational facts are established, such as victim's age or commission of acts specified under POCSO Act - In this case, foundational facts are not proven - Evidence from Section 164 of CrPC statements and medical case papers cannot be considered for drawing inferences about accused's involvement - Trial court erred in relying on presumption under Section 29 of POCSO Act - Impugned judgment of conviction set aside - Appeal allowed.[68],[74],[75],[88],[89],[90]

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Criminal Appeal No. 990 of 2019

Decided On: 09.05.2024

Deelip Tatoba Raje Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.M. Modak, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/3173/2024.

Print Page

Whether the court should acquit public servant in the case of Prevention of Corruption Act if the Complainant Dies or Turns Hostile?

 (f) In the event the complainant turns ‘hostile’, or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant.

 76. Accordingly, the question referred for consideration of this Constitution Bench is answered as under:

In the absence of evidence of the complainant (direct/primary, oral/documentary evidence) it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution.

 In the Supreme Court of India

(Before S. Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.)

Criminal Appeal No. 1669 of 2009

Neeraj Dutta Vs  State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) 

Decided on December 15, 2022

Citation: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1724

Read full Judgment here: Click here

Print Page

Whether the court can convict public servant under Prevention of Corruption Act on the basis of circumstantial evidence?

(f) In the event the complainant turns ‘hostile’, or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant.

 In the Supreme Court of India

(Before S. Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.)

Criminal Appeal No. 1669 of 2009

Neeraj Dutta Vs  State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) 

Decided on December 15, 2022

Citation: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1724

Print Page

Whether government servant turning hostile in Session trial amounts to misconduct?

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we first examine Petitioner's contention that the act of turning hostile does not amount to misconduct. Perjury is an offence punishable under Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "I. P. Code"). If the petitioner had committed offence of perjury, the Sessions Judge ought to have issued notice to him and tried him for that offence. Whether he had committed offence of perjury or not can be established by the Sessions Judge alone. The same cannot be established in a disciplinary enquiry. The law provides for a complete mechanism to punish a person committing office of perjury. Turning hostile, by itself, is not an offence. The only Court competent to record a finding of commission of perjury was the Sessions Judge. The appointing authority, not being an expert, would otherwise not be in a position to gauge the factors leading to hostility of the witness. After considering the testimony of the petitioner, the Sessions Judge has thought it appropriate not to issue notice to him for trial for the offence punishable U/Sec. 191 of the I.P. Code. Therefore, it is difficult to hold that the act of giving testimony before Sessions Judge as misconduct and to punish the petitioner for the same. {Para 7}

8. One may morally expect a witness to stand by his previous statement during trial. For a government servant, a higher degree of responsibility could be expected by assisting the prosecution to bring home guilt of the accused by sticking to the statement previously recorded. However, whether this 'expectation' could be extended to an extent that the act becomes a misconduct capable of being punished is the issue. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Writ Petition No. 2352 of 2018

Abdul Rauf Mohammed Khaja  Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Mangesh S. Patil and Sandeep V. Marne, JJ.

Author: Sandeep V. Marne, J.

Decided On: 14.10.2022.

Citation: MANU/MH/3660/2022

Print Page

Whether the court can compel victim of sexual offence to reproduce minute details of sexual offence?

 A Division Bench of this Court following the said judgment of the Apex Court in DOULA v. THE STATECriminal Appeal No.100260/2016 decided on 22-07-2020  has held as follows:

“45. To constitute the offence of either rape

under Section 375 of IPC or penetrative sexual assault

as defined under Section 5 of the POCSO Act, the victim

is not required to explain in detail before the court, the

horrifying act. Sexual violence is not only a

dehumanising act but also intrudes into the victim’s

right of privacy and sanctity. Expecting the victim to

explain step by step as to how the accused violated her,

degrades and humiliates her. Where the victim is a

helpless child or a minor, it leaves behind a traumatic

experience. The courts must be sensitive towards the

plight of the victim of such offence. Under the guise of

eliciting evidence, she cannot be compelled to reproduce

minute details of the horrendous act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8167/2020

STATE OF KARNATAKA, Vs  SOMANNA, S/O DODDA SHETTY,

Print Page

Whether the court can permit public prosecutor to cross examine victim under POCSO Act if she turns hostile?

 In the trial, recording of evidence of prosecution witnesses commenced on 16-09-2019 on which day the victim turns hostile. On her turning hostile, the State seeks permission of the learned

Sessions Judge to cross-examine the witness. The learned

Sessions Judge having declined such cross-examination drives

the State to this Court in the subject petition.

Therefore, the State is to be permitted to cross-examine the victim. But, such cross-examination can be only in terms of Section 33 of the POSCO Act which mandates that while cross-examination questions shall be put to the Court and the Court in turn to put the same questions to the victim. The learned Sessions Judge shall take such care and caution in transmitting the questions to the victim to be in strict consonance with the provisions of the POSCO Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

CRIMINAL PETITION No.8167/2020

STATE OF KARNATAKA, Vs  SOMANNA, S/O DODDA SHETTY,

BEFORE

 MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2022

Print Page

Whether prosecution can cross-examine hostile witness with his statement recorded by investigating officer who was not authorized to investigate the case?

 Section 162, Criminal P.C., has been enacted for the protection of an accused person. To hold that a statement, made during the course of an investigation started and carried on without proper authority, would not be excluded from the prohibition contained in Section 162, would be to deprive an accused person, for no fault of his, of the protection afforded to him by the Legislature. It would put a premium on illegality and would be opposed to the intention of the Legislature and the policy underlying Section 162, Criminal P. C,

33. In my opinion, therefore, if an investigation is in all other respects an investigation under chap. 14, it would not cease to be an investigation under that Chapter within the meaning of Section 162, Criminal P.C., if it has been undertaken without necessary permission or on the strength of an invalid permission; and that the statements, recorded during the course of such investigation, would be as much hit by the provisions of Section 162, Criminal P.C., as the statements, recorded during the course of an investigation under chap. 14, properly undertaken. If, therefore, I had come to the conclusion that Ex. P-10 Is a statement made by Mr. Ibrahim to Ahibaran Singh during the course of an investigation, I would have had no hesitation in holding that the investigation was under chap. 14, and that Section 162, Criminal P.C., was applicable to the statement.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD

FULL BENCH

Decided On: 29.04.1949

 Shyamlal Sharma  Vs.   King-Emperor

Authored By : Seth, Raghubar Dayal, Wanchoo

Author: Seth, J.

Citation: MANU/UP/0019/1949,AIR 1949 All 483

Print Page

Whether defence can rely on evidence of hostile witness?

The evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole, and relevant parts thereof which are admissible in law, can be used by the prosecution or the defence.

Supreme Court of India

Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli & Ors vs State Of Gujarat on 20 October, 2010

Bench: P. Sathasivam, Anil R. Dave

REPORTABLE

Citation;2010ALLMR(Cri)3968(SC),(2011)11SCC111,

Read full judgment here: Click here

Print Page

Whether prosecution can disown its own witness without declaring her hostile?

 PW 16 is an employee of the Municial Council, Chandrapur
and her evidence considering her duty is very important. Admittedly, she
is Incharge of birth and death register. Therefore, her evidence regarding
taking of the birth entry and its being maintained at her office would
have great significance in this case. She had brought abstract of birth
and death register's relevant page. This page is at Exh.145.
At Sr.No.13
at Exh.145,
there is an entry regarding birth of one female on 1.10.1994
with accused No.7 and 8 having been shown as father and mother.

Name of the child is not mentioned therein and the relevant column has
been left blank. No reason has been given by this witness for leaving
blank the column of name of the new born, though we do not find
anything amiss in it as it would be too naive to expect that any parents
would assign a name to an infant immediately on birth and without
completing customary rituals, which have a customary day fixed to
follow. Nevertheless, she has deposed about making of corrections later
on at the behest of accused Nos.7 and 8. There is no dispute about the
fact that these corrections were sought and granted by the Municipal
Council, Chandrapur after registration of crime against the accused
persons in the present case. By these corrections the name of the child
i.e. victim came to be entered in the birth register and also in the birth
certificate issued by the Municipal Council, Chandrapur. Along with the
name of the victim the nick name “Mondi” of accused No.8, has also
been inserted in this document. This was done, according to evidence of
PW 16 Vasanti, by following the due procedure of law in the sense that
proper verification on the basis of such documents as PAN Card, Aadhar
Card, Ration Card, and affidavit was carried out and the claim made by
the parents of the child was found to be correct. Now, the question
would arise as to whether or not any reliance could be placed upon
evidence of this witness and the document that has been proved by the
prosecution through her evidence.

13. The question has been answered by the learned Sessions
Judge in a negative manner. She has rejected the evidence of PW 16 on
the ground that all these corrections were made after the offences in the
present case came to be registered. We find that the ground taken by the
learned Special Judge for discrediting PW 16, Vasanti, is not borne out
from the record and also agitates against the own case of the
prosecution.
14. If we take a careful look at the evidence of PW 16 Vasanti,
we would find that this witness was examined as a prosecution witness
and we do not know as to what made the prosecution examine this
witness as it's own witness, at least this is what appears from the
recorded deposition. After having examined its own witness and after
having not declared the witness with the permission of the Court as
hostile to the prosecution, it is not permissible under the law for the
prosecution to disown its own witness. It is also not permissible in law
for the Court to say that the witness of the prosecution having gone
against the prosecution cannot be believed when the Court has not found
any element of hostility in such a witness. The prosecution has also not
brought on record through the evidence of this witness that the correct
date of birth was either 15.5.1999 or 15.3.1999 and the date of birth
shown in Municipal Council record as 1.10.1994 to be incorrect. No
suggestion in this regard appears to have been given to PW 16 by the

learned A.P.P. Rather, she has been examined as a prosecution witness in
such a manner as to create an impression that the prosecution desired
more strongly to prove the date of birth of the victim to be 1.10.1994
than anything else. There is absolutely nothing in the entire evidence of
PW 16 to find that this witness has spoken some falsehood on oath
before the Court.
15. If such is the impression which one gets logically on reading
the evidence of PW 16 Vasanti, we doubt, if such a witness could be
declared as untrustworthy just because she has stated a different date of
birth of the victim which was not in accordance with the expectations of
the Court. However, this is how the evidence of PW 16 has been
appreciated by the learned Special Judge and we find, with due respect
to the learned judge, that the inference drawn by her cannot arise
logically on assessment of the evidence of PW 16 Vasanti. We are also of
the opinion that there is nothing in her evidence to doubt what she has
stated about the date of birth of the victim and taking of entry (Exh.145)
in the birth register showing the date of birth of the victim to be
1.10.1994. Accordingly, we find her evidence and Exh.145
as reliable.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.740 OF 2018

 Vimalbai Manohar Doballiwar  Vs The State of Maharashtra,



CORAM
: S.B. SHUKRE AND
S.M. MODAK, JJ.
DATE : 19 th DECEMBER, 2018.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : S.B. Shukre, J.)

Print Page

When court should disregard evidence of doctor that injury was due to fall?

 Under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure confirming the sexual assault on her after she turned hostile, contending that she had suffered injury in a fall. The nature of injuries on her person are well nigh impossible due to a fall. Any opinion of the doctor that such injury could be caused by a fall, does not establish the injury as due to fall, as a fact but remains a mere expression of an opinion.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 913 of 2016

Decided On: 28.09.2018

Hemudan Nanbha Gadhvi  Vs. State of Gujarat

Print Page

Whether accused can be convicted in corruption case even if complainant turns hostile?

We have read and considered the evidence of PW-5 in its entirety. So far as demand made by the accused is concerned, accused PW-5 is clear and categorical in stating that the demand of ` 10,000/- was made. Merely because PW-5 was declared hostile with regard to certain other aspects of the evidence tendered by him, the entire evidence cannot be discarded. The evidence tendered by the said witness with regard to the demand in question can be accepted if the same is otherwise worthy of trust. We are of the view that the evidence of PW-5 insofar as demand of bribe is concerned passes the aforesaid test and commends to us for acceptance.

5. In such circumstances and taking into account the totality of the facts of the case, we are of the view that the prosecution in the present case had succeeded in proving the demand of bribe and the acceptance and recovery of the offending bank notes from the possession of the accused.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Crl. A. No. 1501 of 2011

Decided On: 24.02.2016

 S.C. Goel  Vs.  The State

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Ranjan Gogoi and Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.

Citation:(2016) 13 SCC 258

Print Page

Whether court can convict accused on basis of testimony of hostile witness?

 The evidence of a witness who has been declared
hostile can be relied if there are some other
material on the basis of which said evidence can be
corroborated. More so, that part of evidence of a
witness as contained in examination-in-chief, which

remains unshaken even after cross-examination, is
fully reliable even though the witness has been
declared hostile.
20. It is relevant to note that the trial began
against six accused persons. Shivlochan-PW.13 in his
examination-in-chief took the name of Devraj alone
who was stated to have assaulted Devi Prasad.
Shivlochan did not mention in his
examination-in-chief about the presence of other
accused which may be a reason for the prosecution to
get the witness declared as hostile. It is, however,
relevant to note that even in the cross-examination
the witness repeated that he heard Devraj saying
“Maro Sale Ko” who had assaulted Devi Prasad and Devi
Prasad @ Prachar cried “Bachao Bachao”. The factum of
assault by Devraj was throughout maintained by the
witness. Thus, even though witness was declared as
hostile witness his evidence so far as the role of
Devraj is unshaken. Similarly, evidence of Ajar
Das-PW.16, where in his examination-in-chief he
stated that accused Devraj gave three lathi blows to
Devi Prasad which was seen by him. The witness

further stated that Devraj threatened him to run away
otherwise he shall also be assaulted. Even after the
witness was declared hostile he maintained his stand
that he forbidden Devraj from assaulting Devi Prasad.
He further stated that he saw Devraj and Dinda
assaulting Devi Prasad in the night and on the next
day the dead body was found below Rakhet Pulia. The
witness further stated that due to land dispute
Devraj and Dinda had assaulted Devi Prasad. In
cross-examination he voluntarily stated that he had
seen the accused giving three lathi blows. Further,
he stated that he did not see that whom he has beaten
because it was dark. The statement in
cross-examination in no manner dilute the value of
the evidence. It was Devi Prasad who received injury
whose dead body was found next day morning. The
statement that it was Devraj who gave three lathi
blows obviously referred to lathi blow to Devi
Prasad-deceased. Thus, we conclude that in spite of
witnesses PW.13 and PW.16 having been declared as
hostile witnesses their evidence that Devraj
assaulted Devi Prasad is unshaken and has rightly

been relied by the courts below in recording
conviction.
REPORTABLE
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.423 OF 2015

DEVRAJ V STATE OF CHHATTISGARH .

Dated:JULY 25, 2016.

Citation:(2016) 13 SCC366

Print Page

Whether public prosecutor can be permitted to refresh memory of witness without declaring him hostile?

In light of the above referred legal position, when we consider the
deposition of complainant   Gurjibhai Isrambhai Nayak PW 8 recorded
vide Exh. 22, it is clear that the said witness, who is complainant, has
not supported the complaint. It is important to note that after recording
of paragraphs  Nos. 1 and 2 of the examination­in­chief, the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor had neither requested the Court to declare
the said witness as hostile one nor seek permission to cross­examine
the said witness. Instead of doing that, it appears from the evidence
which has been recorded vide paragraphs 3 and 4 of the examinationin­chief
that a leading question had been asked to refresh the memory
of the said complainant PW 8 and thereby a novel procedure has been
adopted   by   the   learned   Additional   Public   Prosecutor   which   was
permitted by the learned trial Judge which is against the provisions of
Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is important to note that before recording
paragraph   Nos.   3   and   4   of   the   examination­in­chief   of   P.W.   No.8­
Gurjibhai Isrambhai Nayak at Exh. 25,  the learned trial Judge has not
put any note or remark to show as to for what reason learned Additional
Public Prosecutor was permitted to adopt said novel procedure. 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL (AGAINST CONVICTION) NO. 964 of 2016


MAHESHBHAI RATILAL BHIL
V
STATE OF GUJARAT

CORAM:  MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Date : 11 /08/2016
Citation: 2017 CRLJ 459

Print Page