Procedural irregularities in witness examination and recorded statements do not upset a conviction without material prejudice.

Procedural irregularities in examining witnesses and recording statements do not vitiate a conviction absent material prejudice. A witness not examined by the Committing Magistrate could still be examined at trial under the Criminal Procedure Code, and any complaint that counsel rather than the court conducted the examination was a curable irregularity because the defence had notice and raised no timely objection. Prior committal statements could support the prosecution case, and where the witness admitted the earlier statement, contradiction rules did not require formal proof in the same way; cross-examination was treated as substantially compliant where the witness was fairly confronted. Alleged defects in recording or reading over the accused's statement also failed because no concrete prejudice was shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a witness not examined by the Committing Magistrate could be examined at the trial and, if so, whether any irregularity in the procedure vitiated the conviction. (ii) Whether prior statements made in committal proceedings could be used in support of the prosecution case and whether the requirements relating to contradiction and corroboration were satisfied. (iii) Whether the alleged irregularities in recording, reading over, and putting the accused's statement caused any prejudice so as to invalidate the trial.

Issue (i): Whether a witness not examined by the Committing Magistrate could be examined at the trial and, if so, whether any irregularity in the procedure vitiated the conviction.

Analysis: The power to examine a witness at the trial notwithstanding non-examination before the Committing Magistrate was treated as available under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Any complaint that the witness was examined by the prosecuting counsel rather than by the Court was regarded, at most, as an irregularity curable under section 537. The decisive consideration was absence of prejudice: the witness had been named earlier, the defence had notice of his identity and role, and no objection had been raised at the proper stage.

Conclusion: The examination of the witness did not vitiate the trial, and the objection failed.

Issue (ii): Whether prior statements made in committal proceedings could be used in support of the prosecution case and whether the requirements relating to contradiction and corroboration were satisfied.

Analysis: The Court drew a distinction between using an earlier statement as corroboration of evidence in chief and using it as a contradiction when the witness denies making it. Where the witness admits the earlier statement, section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act was not the governing provision for proof of the statement. The earlier deposition could support the testimony in chief, and section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could make the committal deposition substantive evidence subject to the Evidence Act. In the case of the hostile witness, the cross-examination procedure was found to be in substantial compliance with section 145, because the witness had been fairly confronted with the relevant passages and given a reasonable opportunity to explain them.

Conclusion: The prior statements were properly relied upon, and the conviction was not undermined on this ground.

Issue (iii): Whether the alleged irregularities in recording, reading over, and putting the accused's statement caused any prejudice so as to invalidate the trial.

Analysis: The certificate of the Committing Magistrate carried the presumption of correctness under section 80 of the Indian Evidence Act, and the burden lay on the party challenging it. Even if the deposition had not been read over, that would amount only to a curable irregularity unless specific prejudice was shown. Likewise, allegations of police threats or duress and the objection based on section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not succeed because no concrete prejudice was demonstrated and the trial disclosed substantial compliance with the statutory requirements.

Conclusion: No material prejudice was established, and the irregularities did not affect the validity of the conviction.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were sustained because the objections raised were either curable irregularities or unsupported by proof of prejudice, and the appeal therefore could not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction will not be set aside for procedural irregularities in examination or recording of evidence unless the accused shows material prejudice, and prior statements may be used to corroborate substantive testimony and, where admissible, to support the prosecution case.

---