Examination of a Witness to Contradict another Witness

Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 153 - Examination of a witness to contradict another witness - the bar comes into play only when questions to shake the credit or credibility of a witness were put to that witness by injuring his character.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

Crl.M.C. No.427 of 2018

Dated this the 12th day of February, 2018

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CRIMINAL M.P.NO.56/2018 IN S.C.NO.111/2011 OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE'S COURT(SPE-CBI)-I ERNAKULAM.

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED NO.2

MOHAMMED HANEEF @ JACKIE HANEEF

BY ADVS.SRI.V.JOHN SEBASTIAN RALPH SRI.M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED SRI.K.J.JOSEPH (ERNAKULAM) SRI.V.JOHN THOMAS SMT.V.T.LISSY

RESPONDENT(S)/COMPLAINANT

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CBI, REPRESENTED BY ITS STANDING COUNSEL, HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-31.

BY ADVS. SRI. SASTHAMANGALAM S. AJITHKUMAR,( SPL.P.P. FOR C.B.I.) SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHARA PILLAI,

O R D E R

Together with a request to recall PW4, PW13 and PW16, who are cited as defence witnesses 1 to 3 in the list, the defence wanted to examine witness No.8 K.V.Sujatha, who was allegedly the wife of PW42.

2. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has presently requested for a permission to examine those witnesses in the list. As far as the recalling of PW4, PW13 and PW16 is concerned, this Court is of the view that there is absolutely nothing to interfere with the impugned order passed by the court below.

3. Regarding the examination of witness No.8 K.V.Sujatha, the court below has found that it is barred under Section 153 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned defence counsel has pointed out that in all situations it cannot be said that such an examination of a witness to contradict another witness is not barred under Section 153 of the Indian Evidence Act; whereas, the bar comes into play only when questions to shake the credit or credibility of a witness were put to that witness by injuring his character.

4. Presently, the evidence tendered by PW42 is not available before this Court. The court below shall examine whether the bar under Section 153 of the Indian Evidence Act is there for the examination of witness No.8 K.V.Sujatha. The learned Special Judge has to consider the question whether any questions to shake the credit of PW42 were put by injuring his character. If no such questions were put to PW42, witness No.8 can be permitted to be examined to contradict him on other matters. It is for the court below to take a decision in the matter. The impugned order, so far as it relates to the examination of witness No.8 alone in the defence witness list, is quashed. The said aspect alone is remitted to the court below for taking a fresh decision in the matter.

Crl.M.C. is disposed of as above.

Presumptions are the Bats of the Law, Flitting in the Twilight, but Disappearing in the Sunshine of Actual Facts [ORDER]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - failure on the part of the complainant to produce his account statement and absence of entry in accounts maintained by him regarding loan advanced to the accused, does show that there was no material to support the basic facts on which the entire case of the complainant was based. Sufficient material was available on record whereby the defence of the accused became probable. In such a situation, the presumption under the provisions of the Act ceased to operate and the burden fell upon the complainant to prove his case, which he failed to do by placing on record cogent evidence.

Adverse Possession | Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, C.A. No. 7764 of 2014 07-08-2019 SC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA | Arun Mishra , S. Abdul Nazeer & M.R. Shah C.A. No.7764 of 2014 with S.L.P. (C) Nos. 8332 - 8333 of 2014 Radhakrishna Reddy (d) Through Lrs. v. G. Ayyavoo & Ors. August 07, 2019 Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 65 - Adverse Possession - Plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by plaintiff under Article 65 of the Limitation Act and there is no bar under the Limitation Act, 1963 to sue on aforesaid basis in case of infringement of any rights of a plaintiff. A person in possession cannot be ousted by another person except by due procedure of law and once 12 years' period of adverse possession is over, even owner's right to eject him is lost and the possessory owner acquires right, title and interest possessed by the outgoing person/owner as the case may be against whom he has prescribed. In our opinion, consequence is that once the right, title or interest is acquired it can be used as a sword by the plaintiff as well...

Anticipatory Bail in Attempt to Murder Cases (Section 307 IPC) : What is Important to Note [Case Law]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Grant of Anticipatory Bail - While considering the application under Section 438, the Court has to see the nature and gravity of the accusation and the antecedents of the applicant which includes whether he has been previously undergone imprisonment on conviction in respect of any cognizable offence, the possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice and whether the accusation has been made with an object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by having him so arrested. [Para 12]

FIRST LAW

Search This Blog