Record In Warrant Cases | Non-Signing Of Witness's Deposition By Magistrate Will Be Fatal To Case: Punjab & Haryana HC

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that non- signing of the deposition of the witnesses, by a Magistrate in a warrant case under Section 275 CrPC ( Section 310 BNSS) would be fatal to the case of the prosecution.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar said, "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 said that the drill of sub- section (4) of Section 275 Cr.P.C. is mandatory in nature and non- signing of the deposition of the witnesses, by a Magistrate would be fatal to the case of the prosecution.

"In fact, the failure to abide by Section 275(4) Cr.P.C. 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," it added.

The Court was hearing a revision plea seeking setting aside of order conviction order passed by JMIC under Sections 294 and 357 IPC wherein the accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 06 months and to pay a fine of Rs.3000, as well as the judgment , passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioners. 

The case pertains to a Government School wherein a female teacher had filed complaint against two petitioner- teachers that they were harassing her. It was alleged that in one incident the petitioners pushed her into a room and tried to close the door, with the intention to outrage her modesty. However, the complainant managed to escape.

 Counsel appearing for the petitioners alleged that ASI Rajbir Singh, who prepared the site plan  did not appear for his cross- examination. As such, whether the place of occurrence is a public place or not, remains unclear. It was further contended that the depositions of the complainant, ASI Rajbir Singh were not signed by the Presiding Officer and therefore, in view of the provisions contained in Sections 275 and 276 Cr.P.C., no reliance can be placed upon them.

He further submitted that ASI Rajbir Singh, who had partly investigated the matter, has not come present for his cross examination and as such, the part of the investigation carried out by him remains unproved. 

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that, "it is trite law that all the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, is required to be proved in accordance with law."

The judge noted that in the present case 02 Investigating Officers both named Rajbir Singh, conducted the investigation. The Investigating Officer has not come forward for his cross-examination and consequently, the part of the investigation conducted by him and the evidence collected by him, remains unproved.

"Additionally, the deposition of the second Investigating Officer, who appeared as PW5, was not signed and endorsed by the jurisdictional Court, rendering the same unworthy of any reliance," the Court added.

Justice Brar explained that the 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 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.

 In the light of the above, the Court allowed the plea and acquitted the petitioners by setting aside the conviction order.

Mr. N.C. Kinra, Advocate for the petitioner in CRR No.5082 of 2015.

Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for the petitioner in CRR No.11 of 2016.

Mr. Ramesh Kumar Ambavta, AAG, Haryana. (in both the revision petitions)

 Title: Rajender Singh v. State Of Haryana

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 82

Click here to read/download the order