Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. JAYACHANDRAN, J
Blesson P.B, S/o Cheriyan P.J. – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
ORDER :
Whether a witness/victim can be re-called under Section 348 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023('B.N.S.S', for short), read with Section 149 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 ('B.S.A', for short), to confront her with a 'subsequent' statement, so as to test her veracity, is the question which surfaces for consideration in the first two Crl.M.Cs. The other two Crl.M.Cs challenge the Orders dismissing the petitioners' application (Annexure-A5) seeking certified copies of the deposition of PW1/victim, as also, her statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C in two other Sessions Cases, which, according to the petitioners, are connected with the Sessions Case in question.
2. The factual matrix:
Petitioners in Crl.M.C No.2006/2025 and 2216/2025 are the respective accused person in S.C Nos.366/2024 and463/2024, both of the Fast Track Special Court, Adoor. In S.C No.366/2024 (Crl.M.C No.2006/2025), the offences alleged are under Sections 450, 376(1), 376(2)(n), 354 and 354 A of the Penal Code; and Sections 4(1) read with Section 3(a), Section 6 read with Section 5(1), Section 8 read with Section 7, Section 10 read with Section 9(1), Section 12 read with Section 11(iii), 11
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.
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.
Statements recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. are not substantive evidence and can only be used for contradiction or corroboration during cross-examination.
In child sexual offence trials, recall of witnesses under Section 348 BNSS rejected for vague claims of inadequate prior cross-examination, counsel change, and delay; prioritizes child victim's prote....
The right to cross-examine witnesses is a statutory and fundamental right, crucial for ensuring a fair trial, necessitating courts to allow such opportunities to the accused.
The evidentiary value of a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is limited and is used as an aid during trial.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of a trial Court under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to allow re-examination of a witness for the purpose of conducting cross-examination o....
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.
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
