SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(J&K) 528

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT SRINAGAR
Hasnain Massodi, J.
Sakeena – Appellant
Vs.
Mohd. Hussain Sheikh and Ors. – Respondents
Cr. Rev. No. 07 of 2013, CMP No. 267 of 2014 and CMP No. 215 of 2013
Decided On : 11-12-2015

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :M.A. Qayoom, Advocate

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the death of a victim should not be a reason to throw out the prosecution case without appreciating other evidence on record, and the trial judge has a duty to ensure that all important evidence on either side is brought on record and dealt with in accordance with the law.

Headnote:

EVIDENTIARY VALUE - STATEMENT OF WITNESS - SECTION 164-A CR.P.C. - SUMMARY

Fact of the Case:

The case involves the question of the evidentiary value of a statement of a deceased witness recorded under Section 164-A Cr.P.C. The victim's mother lodged a report alleging that the accused had raped her minor daughter, leaving her pregnant. The victim's statement was recorded under Section 164-A Cr.P.C. and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The victim passed away before appearing in the witness box, and the trial court acquitted the accused due to the non-availability of the victim for examination.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the trial court erred in ignoring the statement of the deceased recorded under Section 164-A Cr.P.C. and rushing to acquit the accused solely based on the victim's death before appearing in the witness box. The court held that the death of the victim should not be a reason to throw out the prosecution case without appreciating other evidence on record.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the statement recorded under Section 164-A Cr.P.C. is of the same evidentiary value as a statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The court also emphasized the duty of the trial judge to ensure that all important evidence on either side is brought on record and dealt with in accordance with the law. The court further directed the trial court to summon the Magistrate who recorded the deceased's statement and to put all incriminatory material to the accused, enabling him to offer an explanation and adduce evidence in defense.

Final Decision: The court allowed the Criminal Revision Petition, set aside the trial court's judgment and acquittal of the accused, and remanded the matter to the trial court for a fresh trial. The bail bonds of the accused were cancelled, and the accused was directed to surrender before the trial court. The court also directed further investigation to find out whether the victim's death was a direct result of the alleged occurrence and whether the accused was responsible for the death. Additionally, the court directed the Director General of Police to move a proposal for the creation of Investigating Sub Inspector posts with specific qualifications.

JUDGMENT :

Hasnain Massodi, J.

1. What is evidentiary value of statement of a witness recorded under Section 164-A Code of Criminal Procedure, who passes away before appearing in witness box, is the question raised in Criminal Revision Petition on hand. Trial Court, while recording judgment of acquittal, did not take notice of statement of deceased recorded by Chief Judicial magistrate, Ganderbal, on 13th September 2012 under Section 164-A Cr.P.C., during investigation of the case. Statement of deceased (victim) was not even put to accused-respondent herein, under Section 342 Cr.P.C. and he offered an opportunity to put forth his explanation. The Trial Court omitted to put the statement to the respondent, notwithstanding the fact that P.Ws. Sakina and Imtiaz Ahmad, stated that such a statement was made by victim before and recorded by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ganderbal. Controversy arises against following backdrop.

2. Mst. Sakina wife of Late Mohammad Shafi Famda resident of Garkul, Arhama, Ganderbal-petitioner herein, on 11th September 2012, lodged a written report with Police Station Ganderbal, alleging that respondent-accused No. 1, sometime before the report was lodged (April 2012) visited her house at Garkul, Arhama, in her absence and committed rape on her minor daughter, leaving her pregnant. It was alleged that victim, at the time of occurrence, was confined to her home because of broken limb and respondent on promise of getting relief sanctioned in her favour, gained access to her and was able to accomplish his design. It was stated that victim did not disclose occurrence to complainant or anyone else, and occurrence came to light when victim complained ailment, was taken to local hospital for medical check-up and pregnancy detected. The report prompted Police Station Ganderbal to register case FIR No. 169/2012. The Investigating Officer during investigation got statement of victim under Section 164-A Cr.P.C., recorded by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ganderbal. Investigating Officer recorded statement of complainant, victim and other witnesses and concluded investigation as proved against respondent. Accordingly, charge sheet alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 376 Cr.P.C. was presented against respondent before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ganderbal, on 15th October 2012. Statement of victim-P.W. 2, recorded under Section 164-A Cr.P.C. was appended to charge sheet. The case on 15th October 2012 itself was committed to Court of Sessions for trial.

3. Respondent was formally charged of offences punishable under Section 376 RPC. He denied charge and asked for regular trial. Prosecution was, therefore, asked to adduce evidence in support of charge. All witnesses except victim of alleged occurrence crossed witness box. Trial court was informed on 29th November 2012 that victim was no more. She was, accordingly, deleted from list of witnesses. Learned Sessions Judge on 29th December 2012 put incriminating material come across in prosecution evidence to respondent as required under Section 342 Cr.P.C. Respondent was given an opportunity to offer his explanation, if any, to material so put. Trial Judge, however, did not put statement of P.W.-2, recorded under Section 164-A Cr.P.C., to respondent nor was reference to such statement made by other prosecution witnesses put to him. Respondent did not lead any evidence in defence. Trial Court upon perusal of record and on hearing public prosecutor and counsel for accused, held prosecution to have failed to prove its case against respondent. Charge sheet was dismissed on 4th January 2013 and respondent acquitted of charge.

4. Trial Court judgment is questioned by complainant in Criminal Revision Petition on hand, inter alia, on the ground that it was not open to Trial Court to discard statement of deceased (victim) recorded under Section 164-A Cr.P.C. on 13th September 2012 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ganderbal. It is pleaded that as statement under section 164-A C























































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top