Case Note & Summary
The matter pertained to a writ petition filed by the defacto complainant, the father of a minor girl who was allegedly sexually assaulted at Vibgyor High School in 2014. The accused, respondents 2 and 3, were charged under Section 376 read with Section 202 IPC and Sections 4, 6, and 21 of the POCSO Act. The trial was ongoing as Spl.C. No. 157 of 2014 before the Special Court in Bengaluru Rural. The petitioner challenged the order dated 20-02-2024 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for POCSO Cases (FTSC-II), Bengaluru Rural, which declined to summon the Judicial Magistrate who had recorded the statement of the child victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The petitioner contended that the statement was deficient as it bore neither the signature of the victim nor that of the recording Magistrate, and that the Magistrate’s examination was essential to corroborate the statement and prevent the prosecution’s case from failing. The State opposed the petition, arguing that summoning a Magistrate under such circumstances is not routine and that the mere absence of signatures did not warrant summoning. The High Court analyzed the provisions of Section 164 Cr.P.C. and Sections 24, 25, and 26 of the POCSO Act. It held that under Section 164(5), a statement other than a confession need not be signed by the maker, and the procedure for recording evidence does not require the witness’s signature. The POCSO Act did not impose any additional formality of signature. Therefore, the absence of signatures did not affect the admissibility of the statement. The Court further observed that summoning a Magistrate is an exceptional measure, not to be resorted to merely on such grounds. The petition was dismissed, the interim stay was vacated, and the Special Court was directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, within six months, on a day-to-day basis.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Recording of Statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. - Requirement of Signature - Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The statement of a victim recorded under Section 164(5) Cr.P.C., being a statement other than a confession, does not require the signature of the maker; the mandatory signature requirement under Section 164(4) applies only to confessions. Therefore, the absence of the victim's signature on a Section 164 statement does not affect its admissibility or evidentiary value - Held that the trial court correctly refused to summon the Magistrate solely on this ground (Paras 9, 13-14) B) Criminal Procedure - Summoning of Magistrate for Examination - Scope and Limitations - Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - A Judicial Magistrate who records a statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. cannot be summoned for examination in a routine manner; the power to summon a magistrate is to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional cases where the court is satisfied that it is indispensable for a just decision. The mere absence of signatures on the statement does not constitute such exceptional circumstances - Held that the petition fails and the trial court's order is upheld (Paras 7, 18) C) Child Protection - Recording of Statement under POCSO Act - Procedure and Evidentiary Value - Sections 24, 25, 26 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - The POCSO Act provides a protective framework for recording statements of child victims, mandating that the statement be recorded as spoken by the child and in a child-friendly environment, but it does not impose any additional formalities such as requiring the child's signature. The admissibility of such statement is governed by the general law under the Cr.P.C., and absence of signatures does not render it invalid - Held that the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. read with Section 25 of the POCSO Act remains a valid piece of evidence (Paras 8, 10, 15) D) Criminal Procedure - Speedy Trial in POCSO Cases - Directions for Expeditious Disposal - Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Recognizing that the trial in a POCSO case had been pending for 12 years, the Court stressed the paramount importance of concluding trials involving child victims expeditiously, in line with the right to speedy trial - Held that the Special Court was directed to proceed with the trial on a day-to-day basis and conclude it as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months (Paras 17-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Special Court was justified in declining to summon the Judicial Magistrate who recorded the statement of the child victim under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. on the ground that the statement lacked the signatures of the victim and the Magistrate?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the trial court's order declining to summon the Magistrate. It held that the absence of signatures on a Section 164 statement (other than a confession) does not affect its admissibility and that summoning the Magistrate was not warranted. The Court directed the Special Court to proceed with the trial on a day-to-day basis and conclude it expeditiously, preferably within six months.
Law Points
- Section 164 Cr.P.C. does not mandate signature of the maker of a statement other than a confession
- statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is not rendered inadmissible merely because it does not bear the signature of the victim or the Magistrate
- summoning of the Magistrate for examination can only be ordered in exceptional circumstances when it is essential for just decision
- the provisions of the POCSO Act regarding recording of statements are child-friendly and do not impose additional formalities beyond those in the Cr.P.C.
- speedy trial is imperative in POCSO cases
