The Karnataka High Court said on Wednesday that in criminal proceedings, a victim’s statement recorded by the magistrate is considered at a higher pedestal than the statements of witnesses that are recorded by investigating authorities..However, the Court added that neither statement is considered the gospel truth until examined by a court of law at the stage of trial.The observation was made by Justice M Nagaprasanna while hearing the arguments on a petition filed by former Karnataka Chief Minister and BJP leader BS Yediyurappa seeking quashing of the FIR registered against him for alleged sexual assault of a minor girl in February this year..Senior Counsel CV Nagesh, who appeared for Yediyurappa, told the Court that at least “half a dozen witnesses” in the case have told the probe agency that “nothing” had happened on the day of the alleged incident.Nagesh said it was only the victim’s statement that made allegations against Yediyurappa and the same should not be taken as the gospel truth..However, the Court said that while the truth of statements is to be examined at the stage of trial, the victim’s statement is given a higher weightage because it is recorded by a magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) while the witness statements are recorded by the investigating bodies under Section 161 of CrPC. “One does not know what are the circumstances under which the investigating authorities have recorded the witness statements,” the Court said..More importantly, the Court asked how it could exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash entire proceedings in the case on the basis of Section 161 and 164 statements.“Are you saying that a court exercising jurisdiction under 482 will believe these statements under 161 and ignore the victim’s statement under 164? Asking for entire proceedings to be quashed on the argument of statement vs statement under 161 and 164. In my prima facie view, the option of quashing is not permitted on this basis. Show me one judgement that says relying on 161 and 164 statements, the entire proceedings can be quashed,” Justice Nagaprasanna said..The Court will hear further arguments in the case on December 19..The case pertains to allegations made by a woman that Yediyurappa molested her 17-year-old daughter who had accompanied her on a visit to the senior BJP leader's residence to seek some help.The girl’s mother, now deceased, lodged a police complaint on March 14 accusing Yediyurappa of having sexually harassed the girl. She also said in her complaint that the former Chief Minister had tried to hush up the issue by offering her money.Based on such complaint, the police registered a first information report under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and Section 354(A) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on charges of sexual harassment of a minor.In May this year, the complainant-woman died at a private hospital in Bengaluru.
The Karnataka High Court said on Wednesday that in criminal proceedings, a victim’s statement recorded by the magistrate is considered at a higher pedestal than the statements of witnesses that are recorded by investigating authorities..However, the Court added that neither statement is considered the gospel truth until examined by a court of law at the stage of trial.The observation was made by Justice M Nagaprasanna while hearing the arguments on a petition filed by former Karnataka Chief Minister and BJP leader BS Yediyurappa seeking quashing of the FIR registered against him for alleged sexual assault of a minor girl in February this year..Senior Counsel CV Nagesh, who appeared for Yediyurappa, told the Court that at least “half a dozen witnesses” in the case have told the probe agency that “nothing” had happened on the day of the alleged incident.Nagesh said it was only the victim’s statement that made allegations against Yediyurappa and the same should not be taken as the gospel truth..However, the Court said that while the truth of statements is to be examined at the stage of trial, the victim’s statement is given a higher weightage because it is recorded by a magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) while the witness statements are recorded by the investigating bodies under Section 161 of CrPC. “One does not know what are the circumstances under which the investigating authorities have recorded the witness statements,” the Court said..More importantly, the Court asked how it could exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash entire proceedings in the case on the basis of Section 161 and 164 statements.“Are you saying that a court exercising jurisdiction under 482 will believe these statements under 161 and ignore the victim’s statement under 164? Asking for entire proceedings to be quashed on the argument of statement vs statement under 161 and 164. In my prima facie view, the option of quashing is not permitted on this basis. Show me one judgement that says relying on 161 and 164 statements, the entire proceedings can be quashed,” Justice Nagaprasanna said..The Court will hear further arguments in the case on December 19..The case pertains to allegations made by a woman that Yediyurappa molested her 17-year-old daughter who had accompanied her on a visit to the senior BJP leader's residence to seek some help.The girl’s mother, now deceased, lodged a police complaint on March 14 accusing Yediyurappa of having sexually harassed the girl. She also said in her complaint that the former Chief Minister had tried to hush up the issue by offering her money.Based on such complaint, the police registered a first information report under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and Section 354(A) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on charges of sexual harassment of a minor.In May this year, the complainant-woman died at a private hospital in Bengaluru.
