Hostile Witness and Incomplete Testimony of Deceased Injured Witness Fatal to Prosecution: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Leave to Appeal Against Acquittal
Case Name: State of Haryana v. Krishan Kumar and Others
Date of Judgment: 06 March 2026
Citation: CRM-A-62-2023
Bench: Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur
Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court held that where the complainant turns hostile and the injured witness dies before cross-examination after the addition of a new accused under Section 319 CrPC, his earlier examination-in-chief cannot be relied upon. In the absence of credible eyewitness testimony linking the accused to the offence, medical evidence alone is insufficient to sustain conviction. Consequently, the Court declined leave to appeal against acquittal.
Summary: The State of Haryana filed an application under Section 378(3) CrPC seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 11.07.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehabad, whereby the respondents were acquitted of offences under Sections 341, 323, 325, 307 and 506 read with Section 34 IPC.
The prosecution case was that on 25.02.2016 the injured Hanuman was allegedly assaulted by the accused persons with lathis near the dhani of one of the accused. The complainant Ram Niwas claimed that when he attempted to intervene, the accused threatened him and fled from the spot. The injured was initially taken to the General Hospital at Fatehabad and later shifted to V.K. Neurocare Hospital, Hisar.
During investigation, medical examination revealed a fracture in the injured’s left hand and a head injury which doctors later declared dangerous to life. Accordingly, offences under Sections 325 and 307 IPC were added during investigation.
During trial, the prosecution examined multiple witnesses including the injured Hanuman as PW2 and the complainant Ram Niwas as PW4. Subsequently, on the basis of an application under Section 319 CrPC, another accused was summoned to face trial. Charges were reframed and proceedings were to be conducted afresh.
However, the injured witness Hanuman died before his cross-examination could be completed after the addition of the new accused. The Court observed that once a new accused is summoned under Section 319 CrPC, the trial must commence afresh and witnesses must be examined again to allow the newly added accused an opportunity to cross-examine them. Since Hanuman had died before such re-examination could take place, his earlier examination-in-chief recorded prior to the summoning of the additional accused could not be relied upon in evidence.
The Court relied upon the Supreme Court decision in Shashikant Singh v. Tarkeshwar Singh and the Constitution Bench judgment in Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab, which mandate a de novo trial after summoning of an additional accused under Section 319 CrPC.
The High Court also noted that the complainant Ram Niwas, who was an eyewitness according to the prosecution, turned hostile during trial and categorically stated that the accused persons had not caused injuries to his brother. His testimony therefore did not support the prosecution case.
The Court further observed that although medical evidence established the presence of injuries on the victim, such evidence by itself could not prove that the accused persons were responsible for causing those injuries in the absence of reliable ocular testimony.
Considering these circumstances, the Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court also reiterated the settled principle that interference with an order of acquittal should be exercised with great caution. Since the trial court’s findings were based on appreciation of evidence and did not suffer from perversity or illegality, there was no justification for granting leave to appeal.
Decision: The High Court dismissed the State’s application for leave to appeal and upheld the acquittal of the accused persons.