A complainant changing their statement in court is a genuinely significant development, and in the right circumstances it can be the turning point that leads to your acquittal — but I want to give you an accurate picture rather than premature certainty, because the legal outcome depends heavily on the type of case you are in and what other evidence the prosecution holds.

When a prosecution witness resiles in court from what they told the Nashik Police under Section 180 BNSS, they are described as having turned "hostile." The prosecution may seek permission to cross-examine its own witness — a facility available under the BSA — but the court does not automatically discard everything the witness has said. The court evaluates the whole testimony, the earlier police statement, and the explanation for the change, and decides what parts, if any, are reliable and independently corroborated. A changed statement weakens the prosecution materially but does not by itself collapse the case.

The cases in Nashik's courts where a changed statement is most decisive are those where the complainant is the sole or central witness with no independent corroboration — common in neighbourhood disputes in areas like Panchavati, Nashik Road, and Deolali, and in matrimonial conflicts across the city. Where that sole witness resiles and the prosecution has no forensic evidence, no CCTV, and no independent testimony to fall back on, the benefit of the doubt belongs to you and acquittal follows. Your counsel must exploit the contradiction systematically: pin it down precisely in cross-examination, highlight the complete absence of corroboration, and make the closing argument that the prosecution has simply failed to discharge its burden of proof. The criminal trial advocates and retired judges at the Nashik panel of Aapka Legal Advice can assess whether the changed statement in your case is decisive and plan the cross-examination to make the most of it.