'Pained & Shocked' Over Trial Judge Who Held Witness Guilty For Taking Contradictory Stand: P&H HC Refers Matter To CJ, Recommends Training

The Punjab & Haryana High Court has expressed shock over the conduct of a judge who held the witness guilty for giving false statement because he took a contradictory stand before the police and the Court. 

Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjay Vashishth said, "We are extremely pained and shocked by the manner by which the concerned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, has conducted himself. We find that learned Judge has proceeded with an assumption that the statement made under Section 161 Cr. P.C. before the police is the truthful statement and the statement made in the Court is a false evidence and also proceeds to impose punishment on the concerned witness."

The Court noted that even before the case was decided finally on 13.12.2021, 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.

Stating that It appears that the Judge requires training on the subject, the Court referred the matter to the Chief Justice to take administrative action.

These observations were made while hearing the application of suspension of sentence during pendency of an appeal filed by a juvenile tried as an adult in a murder case, and he was sentenced to life.

Senior counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the order passed by the Juvenile Justice Board was defective as it did not comply with the requirements under Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, as no psychological assessment of the child, who was only 17 years of age, was undertaken before reaching to the conclusion of trying him as an adult.

Considering the submission, the Court said the proceedings initiated by the Children Court as against the appellant prima facie are vitiated.

It noted further that the appellant has already undergone a total sentence of 4 years 3 months and 21 days.

The bench opined that prima facie the applicant/appellant, therefore, could not have been sentenced to life imprisonment, as the eye-witnesses had turned hostile.

In the light of the above, the Court suspended the sentence.

Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Caral, Advocate, and Mr. Siddhart Chawla, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Apoorv Garg, Senior DAG/Public Prosecutor, Haryana.

Title: DEVENDER @ SACHIN V/S STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (PH) 323

Click here to read/download the order