Pranav B Prem

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has ruled that the failure of a Magistrate to sign the deposition of witnesses in a warrant case under Section 275(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) (now Section 310 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is fatal to the prosecution's case.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, while deciding the criminal revision petitions held that “A bare perusal of the (Section 275(4) CrPC) provision indicates 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.” The Court further emphasized that the procedure under Section 275(4) CrPC is mandatory and non-compliance would render the evidence inadmissible, thereby vitiating the entire prosecution.

Case Background

The case pertained to an incident at a Government Senior Secondary School where a female teacher accused two of her colleagues of harassment. According to the prosecution, the petitioners had repeatedly harassed the complainant and in one instance allegedly pushed her into a room and tried to close the door with the intent to outrage her modesty. The complainant, however, managed to escape. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rohtak, convicted the petitioners under Sections 294 and 357 IPC and sentenced them to six months of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 3000. This conviction was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak. The petitioners subsequently filed a revision petition before the High Court, challenging their conviction on multiple grounds, including procedural irregularities.

Non-Signing Of Depositions By Magistrate – A Fatal Flaw

One of the primary contentions raised by the petitioners was that the depositions of crucial witnesses, including the complainant and the investigating officers, were not signed by the Magistrate as required under Section 275(4) CrPC. The Court observed that “failure to abide by Section 275(4) CrPC alone would be sufficient to suffocate the case of the prosecution since the same is not an inconsequential irregularity rather it impacts the entire prosecution. Any testimony recorded in a warrant case, without following the drill of Section 275(4) Cr.P.C., cannot be read into evidence.”

The Court further noted that one of the investigating officers (PW4-ASI Rajbir Singh) who had prepared the site plan did not appear for cross-examination, leaving the site plan and his part of investigation unproved . The other investigating officer (PW5-ASI Rajbir Singh) had recorded testimony, but it was unsigned and, therefore, unworthy of reliance.

Right to Cross-Examination and Fair Trial

Emphasizing the importance of cross-examination in criminal trials, Justice Brar observed, “It is trite law that the testimony of a witness cannot be read into evidence till the opposite party is 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 is in direct violation of the right to free and fair trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as well as the principles of natural justice.”

The Court relied on precedents, including the Supreme Court’s decision in Ekene Godwin & another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2024(3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 341), where it was held that recording only the examination-in-chief of witnesses without cross-examination is contrary to law. Similarly, the Orissa High Court in Sadan Bhalu & others Vs. State of Orissa (2010(45) Orissa CriR 231) held that oral evidence must be tested through cross-examination; otherwise, it cannot be treated as evidence.

Acquittal of the Petitioners

In light of the procedural irregularities, including the failure to adhere to Section 275(4) CrPC and the lack of cross-examination of key witnesses, the High Court allowed the revision petitions. The Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the petitioners, stating that the prosecution had failed to establish its case in accordance with the law.

Cause Title: Rajender Singh v. State Of Haryana & Suresh Kumar v.State of Haryana

Case No: CRR No.5082 of 2015 & CRR No.11 of 2016

Bench: Justice Harpreet Singh Brar

[Read/Download order]