Source: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Why in News?

Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Gurbir Singh have observed that where sufficient evidence is available to corroborate the prosecution version, the statement of the complainant, despite his turning hostile during cross-examination can still be relied upon.

• The Punjab and Haryana High Court gave this judgment in the case of Shokeen v. State of Haryana.

What is the Background of Shokeen v. State of Haryana Case?

• The prosecution, in order to lend corroboration to version of the complainant, relied upon the factum of recovery of the weapon of offence at the instance of the accused and on the report of Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL).
• According to the prosecution, the accused (Shokeen) had fired the gunshots at the victim-girl head following an altercation with her father at a party in 2016.
• In his examination in chief, the deceased girl's father had stated that the accused Shokeen had fired gun shots at his daughter and his friends encouraged him to do so. However, after 7 months in cross- examination the complainant deferred from his statement.
• The FSL report pertaining to the ballistic examination of the allegedly recovered country-made pistol supported the prosecution's case but the counsel for the accused said reports of FSL cannot be looked into as no opportunity whatsoever was ever afforded to the appellant to cross-examine the expert.
• The court noted, on perusal of the testimony of prosecution witness-4 (complainant), it is invincible that in examination-in- chief, he had supported the prosecution story in entirety but in the cross-examination, he had taken the path of prevarication.
• The accused confessed his guilt immediately after the incident when he was arrested. He made a disclosure statement confessing his guilt and as regards having concealed the country-made pistol in fodder room near the house of his uncle.
• The accused, in furtherance of his disclosure statement led the police party to the place where he had kept the pistol concealed and got the same recovered along with one live cartridge and an empty cartridge.
• Perusing the examination-in-chief of the complainant the court noted that he stated consistently with the first version that the accused had fired from a country-made pistol at forehead of his daughter. The said version finds corroboration from medical evidence as well, added the bench.
• Consequently, the plea was dismissed.

What was the Court’s Observation?

• Under these circumstances where sufficient evidence is available to corroborate the prosecution version, the statement of the complainant, despite his turning hostile during cross-examination can safely be relied upon.
• It is apparently a case where the accused had been successful in winning over the complainant during the inordinate delay of 7 months in recording cross-examination after the examination-in-chief had been recorded.

What is a ‘Witness’?

• About:
  • A witness is a person who has personally seen an event happen. The event could be a crime or an accident or anything. Section 118-134 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) talks about who can testify as a witness, how can one testify, what statements will be considered as testimony, and so on.
  • As per Section 118 of IEA, 1882, a competent witness is one who has the capacity and ability to understand the questions put to him by the court. If he has the understanding of questions and the ability to give rational answers, then he is a competent witness.
  • Any person can be a witness. There’s no restriction as to who a witness can be.
  • A person, either male or female, a child or aged, can be a witness. The only restriction is that if a person does not understand the questions and is not able to answer rationally, then he is not a competent witness.