‘Non-signing of witness depositions by Magistrate is fatal to prosecution case’; P&H HC acquits two teachers in assault case

Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a set of two revision petitions filed by two teachers convicted under Sections 294¹ and 357² of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) against the judgment of conviction as well as the judgment rejecting the appeals filed by the convicts, a Single Judge Bench of Harpreet Singh Brar, J., allowed the revision petitions reiterating that since Section 275(4)³ of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) was mandatory, the non-signing of witness depositions by the Magistrate was fatal to the prosecution case. The Court also reiterated that a witness’s testimony could not be read into evidence till the opposite party was granted an opportunity to cross-examine.

Background

The complainant was employed as a teacher at Government Senior Secondary School, Sarai Ahmad Naseerpur, along with both the convicts. One day, convict 1 took a photo of the complainant. When she complained about it to another teacher, convict 1 pushed her into a room and tried to close the door, intending to outrage her modesty. However, the complainant managed to escape. Aggrieved, she filed a complaint with the police. Thereafter, convict 1 threatened to implicate her and her husband in a false case under the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, whereas convict 2 started calling her, uttering obscene words while threatening to kill her. He harassed her mentally by calling her multiple times in a day.

In the trial, the convicts were held guilty under Sections 294 and 357 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs.1,500 each. Aggrieved, an appeal was filed by the convicts, but it was rejected. Thus, the present revision petitions were filed.

Analysis

The Court stated that a bare perusal of Section 275 of CrPC indicated that any evidence taken by the jurisdictional Magistrate, in written form, shall be signed by him for it to be considered as evidence and form a part of the record of the jurisdictional Court. Thus, the drill of Section 275(4) of CrPC is mandatory in nature, and the non-signing of the witness depositions by a Magistrate would be fatal to the case of the prosecution. The Court further stated that the failure to abide by Section 275(4) alone would be sufficient to suffocate the case of the prosecution since the same was not an inconsequential irregularity, rather it impacted the entire prosecution. Any testimony recorded in a warrant case, without following the drill of Section 275(4), could not be read into evidence.

The Court reiterated that all evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of the investigation was required to be proved in accordance with the law. In the present case, the Court noted that two Investigating Officers, i.e., PW4 and PW5, conducted the investigation. PW4 did not come forward for his cross-examination, and consequently, the part of the investigation conducted by him and the evidence collected by him remained unproved. Additionally, the deposition of the PW5 was not signed and endorsed by the jurisdictional Court, rendering the same unworthy of any reliance.

The Court highlighted that it was trite law that a witness’s testimony could not be read into evidence till the opposite party was granted an opportunity to cross-examine him/her. Denial of such opportunity would prejudice the opposite party and hamper their ability to present the best available evidence, which was in direct violation of the right to a free and fair trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution as well as the principles of natural justice. The Court stated that while it was true that the testimony in itself, might have some probative value, it was the circumstances that would cause the Court to decide if cross-examination would shake the witness’s credibility. In this regard, the Court referred to Ekene Godwin v. State of T.N., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 337.

Thus, the Court allowed the revision petitions and set aside the impugned judgments, thereby acquitting the convicts.

[Rajender Singh v. State of Haryana, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 811, decided on 10-02-2025]

Advocates who appeared in this case :

For the petitioner: N.C. Kinra and Rajesh Lamba

For the respondent: AAG Ramesh Kumar Ambavta

Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  HERE

Buy Constitution of India  HERE

Buy Penal Code, 1860   HERE