The Punjab and Haryana High Court confirmed that conviction under Sections 356, 457, and 511 IPC can be sustained even where the prosecution does not examine all material witnesses, so long as examined witnesses provide cogent and confidence-inspiring testimony. The decision affirms well-settled law and serves as binding precedent within the State, providing clear guidance for future cases involving missing witnesses.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRR/36/2008 of RANDHIR Vs STATE OF HARYANA |
| CNR | PHHC010504652008 |
| Date of Registration | 09-01-2008 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF |
| Judgment Author | MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Judge (MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law – Indian Penal Code |
| Questions of Law | Whether non-examination of all cited material witnesses is fatal to the prosecution’s case if other prosecution evidence is trustworthy and inspires confidence. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that non-examination of every cited witness is not per se fatal to the prosecution case; conviction can be sustained if the examined evidence is cogent, reliable, and inspires confidence. In this case, the testimony of the victim and a supporting eyewitness was found credible. The Court held that minor discrepancies or non-examination of other witnesses did not detract from the prosecution’s case. The concurrent factual findings of the trial and appellate courts were upheld, and the conviction was affirmed, although the sentence was reduced in the circumstances. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | The judgment refers to the “well-settled law” on the point of non-examination of witnesses, though specific citations are not named. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court referenced established principles that missing witnesses do not vitiate the prosecution case if existing evidence is credible and corroborative. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The accused was found trespassing into the complainant’s house at night, attempting to snatch earrings from a sleeping woman. On raising alarm, he tried to escape but was apprehended. Complaints and FIR were promptly lodged, charges were framed under IPC Sections 356, 457, and 511. |
| Citations | Not specified in the judgment text provided. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Punjab and Haryana |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court reaffirmed that non-examination of every cited witness is not automatically fatal to the prosecution, provided existing evidence satisfactorily proves the case.
- Testimony of the direct victim, if credible and corroborated by other reliable evidence, can form the sole basis for conviction.
- Minor discrepancies or sequence variations in witness testimony are not grounds for acquittal if the core facts remain unshaken.
- Lawyers defending accused persons should focus on challenging the credibility of examined witnesses rather than relying solely on the absence of other cited witnesses.
- The Court may reduce sentence in appropriate cases considering long passage of time, elapsed incarceration, and clean antecedents, even while upholding conviction.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court considered the primary argument that the prosecution’s failure to examine material witnesses (specifically, the complainant and an eyewitness) was fatal to the case.
- It referred to the “well-settled law” that failure to examine every cited witness does not per se vitiate the prosecution’s case; what matters is whether examined witnesses provide confidence-inspiring testimony that proves the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt.
- The Court emphasized the cogency and reliability of the victim’s (PW5 Savitri) testimony, which was found to withstand cross-examination and was corroborated by another witness (PW4 Lal Singh) and the Investigating Officer (PW2 Om Prakash).
- Minor discrepancies highlighted by the defence were deemed immaterial; the Court focused on the consistency of the substance of the evidence.
- Finding no mala fides or evidence of false implication, and noting the absence of enmity, the Court upheld the concurrent findings of guilt by both lower courts.
- On the quantum of sentence, the Court took a lenient view in light of prolonged proceedings, absence of prior or subsequent criminal conduct, and time already spent in custody, reducing the substantive sentence but increasing the fine.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Prosecution failed to examine material witnesses, namely the complainant (Roshan Lal) and an eyewitness (Murti Devi); their non-examination was fatal.
- The testimonies of PW4 Lal Singh and PW5 Savitri suffered from serious infirmities.
- PW4 Lal Singh, though claimed to identify the accused, admitted in cross-examination that the accused had fled before his arrival.
- Prosecution failed to establish the offence of lurking house trespass as required under Section 457 IPC, especially in the absence of reliable evidence.
Respondent (State)
- Supported the concurrent findings of conviction by both lower courts.
- Noted that PW1 Constable Om Prakash promptly recorded the Daily Diary Report upon receiving telephonic information, lending credence to the prosecution’s version.
- The ocular testimonies of PW4 Lal Singh and PW5 Savitri were consistent and trustworthy; both categorically deposed regarding the accused’s entry into the house and attempted snatching of earrings.
- There was no motive for the complainant to falsely implicate the accused.
- Both lower courts rightly found that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, warranting no interference.
Factual Background
During the intervening night of 13.11.1999 and 14.11.1999, at about 11:30 p.m., the accused entered the complainant’s house by scaling the wall. Savitri, the wife of the complainant’s younger brother, was sleeping inside wearing earrings. The accused attempted to snatch her earrings, on which she raised an alarm. Family members and neighbours arrived, and the accused tried to flee but was apprehended. FIR No. 144 was registered at Police Station Ateli under Sections 457, 356, and 511 IPC. Following investigation, a challan was presented, charges were framed, and, after trial, the accused was convicted and sentenced by the trial court, with modifications by the appellate court.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 457 IPC (Lurking House Trespass by Night): The Court considered the requirements for conviction under this section and held that the prosecution case was proved beyond doubt based on the evidence adduced.
- Section 356 IPC (Assault or Criminal Force in Attempt to Commit Theft of Property Carried by a Person): The Court found the attempted snatching of earrings satisfied the offence.
- Section 511 IPC (Attempt to Commit Offence): Applied in conjunction, as the attempt to snatch the earrings was established.
- The Court held that non-examination of every cited witness is not prescribed as a fatal defect in the Criminal Procedure Code or under the IPC, so long as remaining evidence is credible.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinion is present; the judgment is authored solely by MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL.
Procedural Innovations
- The High Court adjusted sentencing by reducing the substantive imprisonment to the period already undergone and enhancing the fine, to be deposited in the Punjab Chief Minister Relief Fund, specifying account details and a two-month compliance period.
- The judgment provided that failure to deposit the fine would nullify the benefit of sentence reduction.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law on non-examination of all material witnesses affirmed.
Citations
No SCC, AIR, MANU, or neutral citation is specified in the judgment text provided. Judgment is speaking/reasoned; reportable status not indicated.