The duty of the Court to ensure fair trial for both the accused and the State, and the significance of cross-examination in bringing out the truth and testing the veracity of witnesses.

JUDGMENT

Index to the Judgment

Factual Background

Submissions By Learned Counsels

Analysis and Findings

i. Analysis of Evidence

ii. Denial of Opportunity to Prosecutor to Cross-Examine Hostile Witness

iii. Impact of Witness turning Hostile during Cross-Examination

iv. Fair Trial: Right of State vs. Right of Accused

v. Multi-fold responsibilities of Public Prosecutors

vi. Right of Public Prosecutors to effectively defend the State

vii. Duty of Court to balance the Two Competing Rights

Conclusion

Swarana Kanta Sharma, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (`Cr.P.C') seeking setting aside the impugned judgment dated 30.03.2009 and order on sentence dated 13.04.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, North-West District, Rohini Courts, Delhi (`Trial Court') in Sessions Case 257/06, arising out of FIR No. 419/2005, registered at Police Station Uttam Nagar under Sections 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (`IPC'), whereby learned Trial Court convicted the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 326/324 of IPC. By virtue of order on sentence dated 13.04.2009, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 1/2 years and pay fine of Rs.500/-, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days, for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Brief facts of the case are that on receipt of DD No.25 dated 14.05.2008 at Police Station Uttam Nagar, the investigating officer had reached the spot where he had found that one Anil Kumar had been injured. On inquiry, it was revealed that another injured Titu Kumar had been taken to hospital by his brother. Injured Anil Kumar was taken to Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital where the investigating officer had found that the other injured i.e. Titu Kumar was also admitted there for treatment. Statement of one Neeraj Singh was recorded who informed the investigating officer that he alongwith present accused Antosh had gone to the house of Antosh where the injured Anil Kumar, who lived in adjoining room, started quarrelling with Antosh. Antosh had thereafter asked Anil Kumar to get a fan from the shop of one Lalu, however, Anil Kumar had refused to bring it. Antosh had therefore, stabbed Anil Kumar in his abdomen. The complainant's brother i.e. Titu Kumar who had tried to apprehend Antosh, was also stabbed by Antosh in his chest with intention to kill him. Thereafter, Antosh had run away from the spot. In the meantime, one Dev Shankar had reached the spot and had taken his brother Titu Kumar to the hospital. On statement of Neeraj, the present FIR was registered. During investigation, accused/appellant was arrested and the knife used for commission of offence was recovered at his instance. The opinion on the MLC was obtained and on the basis of the entire facts and opinion of MLC, chargesheet was filed against accused for offence punishable under Sections 324/307 IPC. After conclusion of trial, the accused was convicted for commission of offence under Section 324/326 IPC. The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under:

"6.1 I have heard the learned counsels and perused the evidence on record. To prove the occurrence evidence of Neeraj (PW1), Niranjan Kumar @ Titu (PW5) and Anil Kumar (PW6) is relevant. Neeraj (PW1) is the complainant and an eyewitness to the entire occurrence. He was with the accused since the beginning of the occurrence and watched the entire occurrence. As per his testimony, they were both coming together and they went to the shop of one electrician where the accused made inquiries about some fan. Both of them, then went to the room of Anil and accused directed Anil to collect fan from the electrician's shop. Anil declined to col