Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 62360
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.S. RAMESH, V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, JJ
G.Karthikeyan – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Crl.A.No.855 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.B.William
For the Respondents: Mr.E.V.Chandru @ Mr.E.Chandrasekaran, Special Public Prosecutor
The investigating officer's discretion to record witness statements under Section 180 of BNSS does not invalidate witness testimony if not recorded.
Headnote:This judgment pertains to an appeal filed under Section 21(1) of the National Investigation Agency Act, challenging the order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry regarding the deletion of unrecorded statements of protected witnesses in Criminal Proceedings. The court found that the omission to record statements does not invalidate the witness testimony, adhering to the discretion allowed to the investigating officer under relevant provisions. The appeal was thus dismissed as the claims of the appellant were not substantiated.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. case origin and offenses against the appellant. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments regarding the necessity of witness statement recording. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 3. discretion in recording witness statements under relevant sections. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. admissibility and impact of unrecorded statements on witness evidence. (Para 17 , 18 , 21 , 22 , 24) |
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.)
The present appeal invokes Section 21 (1) of the National Investigation Agency Act . It has been preferred against the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry in M.P.No.4 of 2024 in Spl.S.C.No.64 of 2023 dated 19.03.2025.
2. The petitioner is the sixth accused in the case. He is facing trial for the alleged offences under Section 120B, 201 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, Section 27 (1) of Arms Act , 1959, Sections 3 and 4 of Explosive Substances Act , 1908, and Sections 16 , 18 and 20 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act , 1967 (hereinafter referred to as “ UAPA ”).
3. The origin of the case is Crime No.72 of 2023 on the file of the Villianur Police Station, Puducherry. The complaint came to be registered on 26.03.2023. It commenced investigation for offences under Sections 147, 148 & 302 of IPC read with Section 3 of Explosive Substances Act , read with section 149 of Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, by an order dated 28.04.2023, the investigation stood transferred to the National Investigation Agency, New Delhi. The investigation was taken up and an alteration report was filed on 19.05.2023, invoking the provisions of UAPA . Union of India also passed an order sanctioning the same on 20.09.2023.
4. The National Investigation Agency completed the investigation and filed a final report on 21.09.2023. It listed 195 witnesses in the charge sheet, out of whom, LW16 to LW29 were designated as “protected” witnesses. In the list of witnesses, LW38, LW48, LW58, LW59, LW135 to LW142, LW145 to LW150, LW152 to LW154, LW166, and LW180 to LW195 have been shown. Their statements under Section 161 have not been recorded. Hence, the appellant filed an application invoking Section 148 and 158(c) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, calling upon the Court to delete the aforesaid witnesses.
5. The short and simple plea of the appellant is as the statement of these witnesses have not been recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , the National Investigation Agency Act cannot show them as witnesses in the case.
6. The learned Principal Sessions Judge received this application as M.P.No.4 of 2024 and ordered notice to the respondent.
7. The respondent filed a detailed counter. According to them, one Punitha, wife of Senthil Kumaran lodged a complaint on 26.03.2023 with the Villianur Police. In the complaint, she alleged that her husband, Senthil Kumaran, had been done to death by six assailants, who came on three motorcycles at 21.30 hours. The manner in which the attack had taken place caused terror to the public and in the surrounding areas. It added the respondent had filed a final report under Section 173 of Criminal Procedure Code and that the copies of the charge sheet, along with all the relied upon documents were furnished to the accused as required by Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code. They pleaded that the purpose of filing the petition was only to delay the pre-trial proceedings.
8. The respondent pointed out that the appellant had sought for unredacted copies of the protected witnesses. They urged that invoking the provisions of Section 17 of the National Investigation Agency Act r/w Section 44 of the UAPA , the agency had obtained previous permission of the court before redacting the details with respect to the protected witnesses and the material objects. They urged that the charges had been framed on 14.08.2024 and the respondent is ready to proceed further. In order to prevent the case from progressing, the present application came to be file
