A High Court Bench expressed surprise over a judge’s oversight in assuming a police statement to be truthful while dismissing a statement made in court as false. Finding this approach problematic, the Bench has referred the matter to the Chief Justice for further review. The incident highlights the importance of judicial diligence in evaluating statements in legal proceedings.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court expressed “pain and shock” over a judicial officer’s approach in assuming a witness’s police statement to be truthful while treating the one made under oath in court as false.
Observing that the officer, now assigned to Panchkula, appeared to need further training, the Bench directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice.
The Bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjay Vashisth was hearing an appeal for sentence suspension when it noted that the Additional Sessions Judge directly charged an accused “child-in-conflict-with-law” and proceeded to witness examination.
The court found that the judge, after reviewing evidence from a prosecution witness, concluded the witness had provided false evidence, as it contradicted the police statement, and subsequently issued show-cause notices under Section 344 of the CrPC for giving false evidence in court.
The judge issued show-cause notices and imposed a Rs. 500 fine on a witness for “admitting her guilt to have given a false statement” after deciding the matter on the same day. The next day, he fined another prosecution witness Rs. 500, concluding that he had turned hostile and provided false testimony.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court Bench expressed it was “extremely pained and shocked” by the Additional Sessions Judge’s approach.
The Bench stated,
“We find that the Judge has proceeded with an assumption that the statement made under Section 161 of the CrPC before the police is the truthful statement and the statement made in the court is false evidence and also proceeds to impose punishment on the witness concerned,”
The court noted this approach contradicted the spirit of criminal jurisprudence, as the judge had penalized witnesses favoring the accused even before the case’s final judgment in December 2021.
The Bench concluded that the judge “requires training on the subject.”
Before concluding, the Bench refrained from further comment on the judge, noting he was not present before the court.
“However, it is a fit case where we should refer the matter to the Chief Justice to take appropriate administrative action, if he deems it so fit against the officer concerned.”