Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA
Dibendu Jyoti Kar, S/o. Dilip Kumar Kar – Appellant
Versus
state of assam – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural context for cross-examining a hostile witness. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments concerning cross-examination of own witnesses under evidence act. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. admissibility of impeaching witness credit via previous written statements. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. final order allowing cross-examination of hostile prosecution witness by the defence. (Para 16 , 17) |
JUDGMENT :
PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.
Heard Mr. A.M. Bora, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D.K. Baidya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D.P. Goswami, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam representing Respondent No.1 as well as Mr. B. Deka, learned counsel representing Respondent No.2.
2. This is an application under Section 482 of the CrPC challenging the order dated 07.11.2013 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Cachar, Silchar in Sessions Case No.08/2013.
3. While filing the charge sheet against the present petitioner, one person called Dulal Paul was shown as a prosecution witness. In spite of that, Dulal Paul was not examined by the prosecution. Therefore, he was examined as a defence witness by the present petitio
An accused is entitled to cross-examine a defense witness who turns hostile by using previous statements recorded by the police, as the proviso to Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, read ....
The court ruled that a witness cannot be recalled to confront them with subsequent statements for impeachment, as only previous statements are permissible under the Evidence Act.
Statements recorded during a police investigation are admissible for the limited purpose of contradicting a witness during cross-examination to test their credibility, a process which cannot be prohi....
Conviction under IPC S.342 r/w 34 upheld on corroborated testimony of confinement; S.504 r/w 34 set aside as abuse lacked provocation for breach of peace. Revisional jurisdiction limited, absent perv....
In non-trial hearings, the right to cross-examine witnesses is not guaranteed; such rights are preserved for trial stages, emphasizing the principle of audi alteram partem.
Recall of witness – Paramount requirement is just decision and for that purpose essentiality of a person to be recalled and re-examined has to be ascertained.
The admissibility of statements recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. as evidence and the conduct of the petitioner's counsel were central legal points established in the judgment.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the plenary power of the court under Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code to summon any person at any stage of the proceedings as a witnes....
An advocate in the discharge of his duties to his client must not be hampered by any fear of offending the opposite party or any witness, and in the wake of such a duty it is further pointed out that....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
