The main legal point established in the judgment is that a party disputing the correctness of a witness's statement must be given an opportunity to cross-examine the witness and impeach their credibility, and that the right to confront the complainant with her earlier version to test her veracity is essential to ensure fair play and fairness in dealing with witnesses.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan J.

This Criminal Revision Petition has been preferred against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Nahan on 24.3.2015, whereby he dismissed the application preferred by the petitioners under Section 146 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short “Act”).

2. The petitioners are accused of having committed offence under Sections 354 A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners after pleading innocence are facing trial. During the course of proceedings, petitioners filed an application under Section 146 of the Act for summoning case files from various Courts as enumerated under paras I (1) to (10) of the application in order to test the veracity of the prosecutrix by confronting her with the records so as to shake her credibility and position in life. This according to the petitioners had been necessitated as there was long standing civil and criminal litigations initiated by petitioner No. 1 against the prosecutrix and had prompted her to falsely implicate him in the instant criminal case.

3. The learned trial Magistrate vide order dated 24.3.2015 dismissed the application on the ground that the documents with which the witness is to be confronted can be done by placing on record certified copies of the record, which as per provisions of Section 76 of the Act are per se admissible.

4. The other ground for rejection of the application was that under Section 105 of the Act, the defence had an opportunity to bring its case within the provisions of general exceptions or proviso of the relevant sections, with which he is charged and thereby it could be inferred that the record could be summoned by the defence counsel when opportunity is granted after recording the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C to lead evidence.

5. Lastly, it was observed that Section 146 of the Act, although deals with shaking of credibility of witness and is subjected to cross-examination, but the confrontation can be with regard to the previous writings or statements given by the witness, which are already on record, as recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C and filed along with the final report (challan) by the police.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.

6. Section 146 of the Indian Evidence Act reads thus:-

“Section 146- Questions lawful in cross-examination When a witness is cross-examined, he may, in addition to the questions hereinbefore referred to, be asked any questions which tend-

(1) to test his veracity.

(2) to discover who he is and what is his position in life, or

(3) to shake his credit, by injuring his character, although the answer to such questions might tend directly or indirectly to criminate him or might expose or tend directly or indirectly to expose him to a penalty or forfeiture.”

7. Indisputably, the object of cross-examination is to obtain from the witness admissions favourable to the other party on whose behalf the cross-examination is directed or to discredit the witness. Crossexamination, is therefore, most effective of all the means for extracting truth and exposing falsehood. It is the duty of the Court to consider the entire evidence of the witness brought on record in examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination. Matter of cross-examination is not a mere empty formality, but one is required to put his own case in crossexamination, otherwise the version of the witness has to be taken as unchallenged. It is the duty to put one’s own version to open end in crossexamination, otherwise the deposition of the witness cannot be discredited.

8. It is more than settled that credibility of a witness depends upon:

(i) his knowledge of facts to which he satisfies;

(ii) his integrity;

(iii) his disinterestedness;

(iv) his veracity; and

(v) his being bound to speak the truth on oath or on affirmation or declaration.

9. Adverting to the facts, it would be seen that in the application filed under Section 146 of the Act, the