High Court Bench shocked over judge’s lapse, refers matter to Chief Justice

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has expressed “pain and shock” over the manner in which a judicial officer assumed that a statement by a witness to the police was inherently truthful, but the one made under oath in the court was false.

The Bench also directed the placing of the matter before the Chief Justice after observing that the officer – now posted at Panchkula – apparently required training on the subject.

The Bench of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjay Vashisth was hearing a plea filed by an appellant-accused for sentence suspension during the appeal’s pendency. The court observed that the Additional Sessions Judge directly framed charges against the accused “child-in-conflict-with-law” and proceeded to examine witnesses.

The Bench added the order sheets showed that the Judge after recording evidence of a prosecution witness concluded she had given false evidence as it was contrary to the one furnished before the police. He also issued show-cause notices under Section 344 of the CrPC, relating to false evidence in a judicial proceeding.

The Judge then decided the show-cause notice the same day and imposed Rs 500 fine upon the witness “admitting her guilt to have given a false statement”. He recorded statement of another prosecution witness the next date before concluding that he had turned hostile and had given a false statement. He, too, was punished with Rs 500 fine.

The Bench asserted it was “extremely pained and shocked” by the manner by which the Additional Sessions Judge conducted himself. “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. Thus, even before the case was decided finally on December 13, 2021, the witnesses who stated in favour of the accused, have been held guilty of giving false statements, which is a course totally against the true spirit of criminal jurisprudence. It appears to us that the Judge requires training on the subject.”

Before parting with the order, the Bench asserted it did not want to make further comment on the officer concerned, as he was not 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.”