The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Antosh vs State consisting of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma held that holding the fundamental right of the accused to effective legal assistance cannot be read as ineffective hearing or lack of opportunities to the State.
Facts:
The investigating officer received a report of an incident at Uttam Nagar Police Station where Anil Kumar was found injured. It was discovered that another person, Titu Kumar (PW-5), had also been injured and was taken to the hospital. The officer recorded a statement from Neeraj Singh, who explained that Anil Kumar (PW-6) and the accused, Antosh, had gotten into an argument. Antosh then stabbed Anil Kumar and when Titu Kumar tried to intervene, he was also stabbed. Antosh fled the scene but was later arrested and a knife was recovered. The accused was convicted for the offences under Sections 324/326 of the Indian Penal Code.
Contentions Made:
Appellant: It was contended that the Trial Court made a mistake in convicting the appellant because the prosecution did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. They claimed that the testimonies of the complainant and the police officials were not trustworthy, and there were inconsistencies in the statements of the crucial witnesses. It was also pointed out that two material witnesses did not support the prosecution’s story and had changed their statements. It was also contended that the case property was not properly handled and presented in court. They also mentioned that the doctor who examined the stab wound was not called to testify. Additionally, it was contended that the appellant did not cause any harm and that one of the witnesses sustained an injury in a separate scuffle. It was claimed that the Trial Court based its decision on inadmissible evidence and requested the appellant’s acquittal.
Respondent: It was contended that the witnesses initially supported the prosecution’s case but changed their testimony during cross-examination. It was suggested that this change occurred because the witnesses had been influenced after being questioned by the prosecution for seven months. As a result, it was argued that the trial court was correct in convicting the appellant.
Observations by the Court:
After considering the arguments and reviewing the case file, the Bench concluded that the Trial Court based its decision on the fact that the testimony of witness PW-1 Neeraj was unchallenged, as well as the testimony of PW-5 regarding the injuries sustained by Titu Kumar. However, the Trial Court also noted that the witnesses attempted to downplay the severity of the injuries sustained by Anil Kumar, claiming they were accidental. The Trial Court acknowledged that there was no record of the doctors being questioned about the possibility of accidental injuries caused by a fall on a kitchen knife. Despite this, the Trial Court found the appellant guilty under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for causing injury to Anil Kumar with a sharp weapon, and under Section 326 IPC for causing a severe penetrating injury to Titu Kumar. The Trial Court disregarded any investigative lapses and stated that they should not be grounds for the accused’s acquittal, resulting in the appellant's conviction under Section 326/324 IPC.
After analysing the evidence, it was determined that the testimony of PW-5 and PW-6 remained consistent with their initial statements. They both expressed forgiveness towards the appellant because he was their cousin. PW-5 mentioned during cross-examination that the appellant was solely at fault for the incident, but they did not want any legal action taken against him due to their familial relationship. Similarly, PW-6 also stated that they had forgiven the appellant because he was their cousin, acknowledging that he had committed the offence as previously stated in their examination-in-chief.
Regarding the issue of the impact of a witness turning hostile during cross-examination, it relied on Rajesh Yadav v. State of UP to opine that the evidence of a witness considered hostile by the prosecution should not be completely disregarded, as both the prosecution and defence can use the relevant parts of the evidence that are admissible in court. Relying on n State of Bihar v. Laloo Prasad, it opined that in cases where a witness initially supports the prosecution but changes their statement during cross-examination, the prosecutor has the right to question the witness again. The court must ensure that the prosecutor is not unfairly denied this opportunity, especially if the witness changes their statement significantly after a long time has passed.
It pointed out that ensuring the accused’s right to proper legal assistance does not mean compromising the State's ability to conduct fair hearings. In this specific case, the accused was given the chance to cross-examine two important witnesses after a delay of eight months, as it was believed that doing so earlier would harm the accused's case. It also talked about the multi-fold responsibilities and right of Public Prosecutors to effectively defend the State.
Judgment:
The Bench saw no reason to change the previous judgment and upheld the appellant’s conviction. They also noted that the appellant had already spent 1 year, 5 months, and 7 days in jail, and had suffered through the criminal trial for 15 years. Considering the sentence given by the Trial Court and the fact that the incident occurred in 2008, the Bench decided to reduce the imprisonment to the time already served. Therefore, the appeal was concluded accordingly.
Case: Antosh vs State
Citation: CRL.A. 415/2009
Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
For Appellant: Mr. Archit Updhayay, Adv.
For Respondents: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State along with SI Tejram, P.S.: Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
Picture Source :
