In a recent ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered a significant judgment, dismissing an appeal challenging a conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case revolved around the alleged shooting of the complainant's daughter during a neighborhood ceremony, where the petitioner was accused of firing the fatal shot.
The incident unfolded when the complainant objected to the petitioner's vulgar dance at the event, leading to a confrontation. The Additional Session Judge had initially found the petitioner guilty, prompting this appeal. The petitioner contested the judgment, arguing that he was falsely implicated, emphasizing the absence of evidence linking him to the alleged crime.
The crux of the petitioner's defense rested on the withdrawal of testimony by one prosecution witness and the complainant turning hostile during cross-examination. The defense counsel questioned the credibility of the recovery of a pistol, live cartridge, and empty cartridge, alleging that these items could easily be attributed to the accused by the police. The counsel also raised concerns about the lack of an opportunity to cross-examine the expert who conducted the ballistic examination of the recovered pistol.
In response, the counsel for the respondent argued that even in cases where witnesses turn hostile, established legal principles allow for the consideration of credible portions of their testimony. Reference was made to Section 293 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which permits the use of Government Scientific Experts' reports as evidence, with the expert summoned for cross-examination only if deemed necessary by the court.
The bench of Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill & Justice Gurbir Singh underscored the immediate confession of guilt by the accused after the incident and highlighted the revelation of the concealed weapon's location during interrogation. Citing a legal precedent in Dhananjoy Chatterjee v. State of West Bengal, the court emphasized the admissibility of the part of the accused's statement leading to the discovery of items.
Addressing the defense's objection to the non-admissibility of the expert's report, the court referred to a Supreme Court decision that upheld the reliance on a Government Expert report despite the lack of cross-examination.
Despite the complainant turning hostile during cross-examination, the court concluded that the statement could be relied upon due to sufficient corroborating evidence. The delay in cross-examination was attributed to the accused's alleged influence over the complainant over several months.
In light of these considerations, the court ultimately dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction of the petitioner under Section 302 IPC. This case stands as a testament to the court's commitment to upholding the credibility of the prosecution's case, even in the face of challenges such as witness hostility and objections to expert reports.
Case: Shokeen v. State of Haryana,
CRA-D-761-DB-2018(O&M).
