'High Time Prosecution Agencies Conduct Training Programmes For Prosecutors To Keep Them Abreast With Procedural Law: Madras High Court
Observing that extraction of Section 161(3) of Cr. P.C statement in cross-examination cannot be construed as a substantive piece of evidence, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has set aside an order of trial court sentencing three murder accused to life sentence. The court iterated that substantive evidence is the evidence tendered by the witnesses on oath during criminal...
Observing that extraction of Section 161(3) of Cr. P.C statement in cross-examination cannot be construed as a substantive piece of evidence, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court has set aside an order of trial court sentencing three murder accused to life sentence. The court iterated that substantive evidence is the evidence tendered by the witnesses on oath during criminal trial.
"...Therefore, mere repeating the statement contained in 161(3) Cr.P.C by the public prosecutor under the pretext of cross examination of the witness who turned hostile can never be substantive evidence. It is relevant to note that the purpose of treating the witnesses hostile and cross examination is to get some materials or to unearth truth from the witnesses", the court noted.
The Division Bench of Justices R. Subramanian and N. Sathish Kumar pointed out that the witness statement under Section 161(3) CrPC were put to witnesses during cross examination with a conclusion that the witnesses who turned hostile gave false evidence to exonerate the accused persons.
About such a method adopted by the prosecution, the court noted as below:
"Even assuming that the witnesses admitted in the cross examination that they have stated the above statement before the Investigating officer, such evidence would be useful only to prove the one particular fact that the said witness has given a statement under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C., not for any other purpose."
While allowing the appeal of the accused, the court also made another pertinent remark:
"It is high time for the prosecution agencies to conduct training programmes for the Public Prosecutors with experienced criminal lawyers and seniors in the field to keep them abreast with the procedural law."
The court also added that cross examination is meant for eliciting relevant answers from the witnesses that establish the guilt of the accused. The single bench went onto note that the evidence of hostile witnesses is not completely devoid of value and it can be treated with other corroboratory evidence if it inspires the confidence of the court. However, the witnesses called in the case at hand do not prove the guilt of the accused, the court said.
"...Mere mechanical typing of the 161(3) statement and recording a general suggestion, as if the witness is lying can never to be construed as an evidence at all. Therefore, the learned trial Judge's conclusion that the witnesses admitted the occurrence is nothing but figment of imagination of the trial Judge", the court added.
Due to the above findings, the court concluded that the trial court has committed a 'fundamental error' in basing the conviction on the S. 161(3) statement. Since none of the 17 prosecution witnesses supported the prosecution version in any manner, the conviction by the trial court was accordingly set aside.
Case Title: Kannan@ Mannanai Kannan & Ors. v. The State represented by Inspector of Police
Case No: Crl.A.(MD)No.3 of 2020, Crl.M.P.(MD)No.1422 of 2022 & Crl.A.(MD)No.22 of 2022
Appearance: For Appellants : Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandian for A1, Mr.M.Jegadesh Pandian for A2 & A3
For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 84
Click Here To Read/ Download Order