Addendum
Mustafa Bhat
(Querist) 06 March 2014
This query is : Resolved
(i)During deposition & Cross examination If the father of Compliant after saying all Grab in 498A & 406,expect that we lodged FIR for compromise only,then what will be the credibility of other Grab Statements like beating,torture & demanding car & house, even if he repeats it in cross examination also,
(ii)The father of compliant in his statement under 161 didnot said about demand of house, but in court deposition statement he said that the accused was demanding house, it slipped out of the mind of my lawyer during cross examination,So same couldnot be cross examined,
Plz advise what impacts it will have on the case.Is any of these statement going to favour accused
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 07 March 2014
1. It suffers from credibility.
2. You can recall the witness for further examination.
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 07 March 2014
If some part is left in cross, you can prey the court to recall the witness for the same.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 07 March 2014
Recalling the witness to fill up the lacuna will not be permitted but if genuine reasons are shown, it may be allowed. This contradiction, if extracted during re-cross examination may be included in the argument.
Mustafa Bhat
(Querist) 21 May 2014
Sir,
Today the lady/Complaint was examined, She made statement under Crpc164 today were in she which said a lot which she has not said in Crpc 161.
Will it be called improvisation.Will it benefit me/accused.
When asked about the demand she said the list which i have given in police station is list of demanded & i have given it to my inlaws as they demanded,when asked why she has not given receipt/Voucher of these items to police she said. She replied that I have given receipt/ Voucher to my inlaws so they were not with her.In crpc 161 she not said anything about Voucher/ receipt.
She also said in Crpc 164 that accused has demanded house,but she has not said anything about house in her Crpc 161 or in her complain.
She was asked in cross examination that does she have ATM,she replied yes but I used to keep it with accused.
Sir My point regarding ATM was basically different, I have got her ATM details were in she has made all ATM Transaction in the month in which she claims to be thrown out of house by accused & inlaws from her parental house & that too in early morning & late in evening which i almost 30 KM from place.So it didnot worked the way i wanted.Actually she was already at the her parental house two months before which she allege the date of occurrence .Will it create any problem
Please advise are they Contradictions/Improvisation. Will it help me/accused any ways.
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 21 May 2014
Do not get much worried about the 164 crpc statement.
It is still required to be corroborated by other prosecution witness.
Contradictions will indeed help
