STATE REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE & ANTI-CORRUPTION DETACHMENT, VILLUPURAM Vs. K PONMUDI @ DEIVASIGAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a case where one of the prosecution witness, also a relative to the accused in the disproportionate asset case has sailed with the prosecution in the chief-examination, however, in the cross-examination, he has thrown details regarding the jewels sold by his mother, who happened to be the mother of one of the accused. Since the prosecution has thought that the witness clever enough to sail with the prosecution in chief-examination, had turned hostile to the prosecution in the cross- examination. Hence, he has to be treated as hostile witness under Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act and allowed to cross-examine him.

(2.) When the learned Public Prosecutor before the Trial Court made a request to treat the witness as hostile, the Trial Court after perusing the previous statements of the witness recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C found that there is no material to treat the witness as hostile. The reasoning for declining the request is recorded in the deposition of the witness itself.

(3.) The State which has preferred this petition challenging the order of the Trial Court would submit that the witness PW.8-Swaminathan, in its previous statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., had not whispered about the jewels held by his mother. In fact, in his further statement, he has categorically state that he does not know where his mother sold the gold jewels worth several lakhs. Whereas in the cross-examination, he has stated that at the request of his mother, he sold 80 sovereign of jewels for Rs.2,40,000/-and gave the money to her. Again he sold 110 sovereign of jewels for Rs.3,50,000/- and gave to her. Since, this portion which has been elucidated during cross-examination is not only a new fact but also contradict to the previous statements of the witness.