Case Name : Kujji @ Surendra Tiwari vs State of Madhya Pradesh
Case Reference: (1991) 3 SCR 1 :
Neutral Citation:
Case Number: Crl A 413/1982
Court: Supreme Court
Bench: 03
Coram: AM Ahmadi, V Ramaswami, K Ramaswamy
Date: 16.07.1991
Declaration as hostile does not ipso facto efface evidence of witness
Evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examine him. The evidence of such witness cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record; but can be accepted to the extent their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof (Page 13, B-D)
Not necessary to call different persons for recoveries at different places
Relying on Himachal Pradesh Administration vs Om Prakash to say that there is no requirement of different witnesses when recoveries are effected from different places on information furnished by the acused. There is no injunction in law against the same set of witnesses being present at hthe successive enquiries if nothing could be urged against them (Page 17)
Appellate court can review entire evidence, not bound by appreciation of evidence by Trial Court
Appellate court can even recorded a conviction in view of IPC - Section 34 despite the acquittal of a co-accused. (Page 21) However, it may not reverse the order of acquittal in the absence of a State appeal
incomplete on Hostile
Refer also: Bhagwan Singh vs State of Haryana, (1976) 2 SCR 921 Rabinder Kumar Dey vs State of Orissa, (1976) 4 SCC 233 Syed Iqbal vs State of Karnataka, (1980) 1 SCR 95 Pedda Narain vs State of Andhra Pradesh, (1975) Supp SCR 84 (Page 89) The object of proceedings under 174 is merely to ascertain whether a person has died under suspicious circumstances, or an unnatural death and if so, what is the apparent cause of the death. It is not necessary for the police to mention details as to how deceased was assaulted, who assaulted him, or under what circumstances he was assaulted in the inquest report. There is no requirement for in practice or in law. Himachal Pradesh Administration vs Om Prakash, (1972) 2 SCR 765 (Page 777)
See also: IPC - Section 302 IPC, Section 324 IPC - Section 34 IPC - Section 149 CrPC - Section 174 CrPC - Section 386