Explain departure from standard procedure: HC to district attorney

“In view of the same, the District Attorney, Panipat, is directed to submit an explanation as to why the statement of the victim and her mother was not recorded at the first instance when trial started.” Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan, punjab and haryana high court

Advertisement

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, February 24

In an out-of-the-ordinary order, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has sought explanation from a district attorney for making a departure from the standard procedure of recording evidence in a rape case.

The direction by Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan came on a petition against Haryana and other respondents by an accused for regular bail in a case registered at the Model Town police station in Panipat district on May 22, 2019. The trial court had framed charges for rape and criminal intimidation under the IPC and POCSO Act.

Justice Sangwan, during the course of hearing, observed that the complainant or victim were to be examined at the first instance as a matter of practice, but the statement of the victim and her mother had not been recorded so far. The petitioner was continuing in judicial custody for about one year, eight months and 23 days.

“In view of the same, the District Attorney, Panipat, is directed to submit an explanation as to why the statement of the victim and her mother was not recorded at the first instance when trial started,” Justice Sangwan asserted.

Directing the filing of an affidavit, Justice Sangwan made it clear that the reason was required to be furnished for giving preference to other witnesses prior to recording the statement of the victim or her mother “as circumstances point out that by delaying the same, prosecution wants to help the accused”.

Justice Sangwan directed the Panipat Superintendent of Police to ensure that the statement of both witnesses was recorded before the next date of hearing.

The trial court was directed to make an endeavour in the meantime to record the statement of the prosecutrix and her mother before the next date of hearing. In case the statement of the two witnesses was not recorded by the date fixed, the trial court was directed to make an endeavour to give short dates for recording their statement.

Justice Sangwan was earlier told that the case was adjourned on two previous dates as it was stated at the Bar that the prosecutrix was not turning up for deposing in the trial court. The counsel for the petitioner referred to trial court orders since November 11, 2020, to submit that no prosecution witness was examined till February 11. Summons issued to the prosecutrix were received back unserved. The state counsel submitted that 13 of the 18 prosecution witnesses had been examined.