In a notable development, the Chhattisgarh High Court has directed a trial court to summon the Judicial Magistrate, who recorded the statement of a victim under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as a ‘defense witness’. This decision is aimed at verifying the authenticity of the victim’s statement.
Also read- Chhattisgarh High Court Affirms: “A Wife Is Neither A Chattel Nor A Bonded Labourer” (lawchakra.in)
The directive was issued by the Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal while hearing a revision application. The applicant, facing trial for offenses under Sections 363, 366, and 376 of the IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act), challenged the order of the First Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO), Janjgir Champa. The Judge had previously rejected his application to call the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Pamgarh as a ‘defense witness’ to prove the veracity of the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164, CrPC.
The applicant was accused of alluring a minor victim, aged about 15 years, under the pretext of marriage and engaging in physical relations with her multiple times. Following the victim’s rescue, a case was filed against the applicant. After the charge sheet was filed by the police and charges were framed, the prosecution examined several witnesses. When the case was set for defense evidence, the accused applied to call the Judicial Magistrate as a witness on his behalf, leading to the impugned order.
Also read- Gujarat High Court Stresses Strict Action Against Malpractices In Competitive Exams To Uphold Integrity (lawchakra.in)
Sumit Singh, counsel for the applicant, argued that the victim, during the trial, made exaggerated narrations supporting the prosecution’s case. However, she allegedly did not accuse the applicant in her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC. When confronted with this statement, she denied having given any such statement to the Judicial Magistrate. Therefore, the counsel contended that it was necessary to record the statement of the Judicial Magistrate as a ‘defense witness’ in the trial court to ascertain the veracity of the said statement. The State, however, sought the dismissal of the revision application.
After considering the arguments, the Court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in P. Yuvaprakash v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, where the Judicial Magistrate who recorded the victim’s statement under Section 164 of the CrPC was examined as a ‘defense witness’ to prove its veracity. Following this precedent, the Court opined that the applicant should be given a full opportunity to defend himself, necessitating the verification of the authenticity of the victim’s statement.
The Court observed,
“From this point of view, it would be appropriate to record the statement of the concerned Judicial Magistrate before the trial Court.”
Consequently, the revision application was allowed, and the trial court was instructed to take necessary steps to examine the concerned Judicial Magistrate as a defense witness.
