Rohtash Kumar vs. State of Haryana, Criminal
Appeal No. 896 of 2011, Decided on May 29, 2013
“It is a settled legal
proposition that evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto,
merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examined
him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced, or washed off
the record altogether. The same can be accepted to the extent that their
version is found to be dependable, upon a careful scrutiny thereof”. [Para 19]
“The law permits the court to
take into consideration the deposition of a hostile witness, to the extent that
the same is in consonance with the case of the prosecution, and is found to be reliable
in careful judicial scrutiny”. [Para 20]
The Court referred following case
laws:
State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra &
Anr., AIR 1996 SC
2766, wherein SC held, that evidence of a hostile witness would not be rejected
in entirety, if the same has been given in favour of either the prosecution, or
the accused, but is required to be subjected to careful scrutiny, and
thereafter, that portion of the evidence which is consistent with the either
case of the prosecution, or that of the defence, may be relied upon.
C. Muniappan & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2010 SC 3718
Himanshu @ Chintu v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2011) 2 SCC 36;
and Ramesh
Harijan v. State of U.P., AIR 2012 SC 1979
To see full
text follow the link: