Punjab and Haryana High Court flags "shocking" mishandling of witness statements by trial judge

The Punjab and Haryana High Court was recently shocked by the manner in which a trial court judge jumped to a conclusion that certain witnesses before him were guilty of giving false statements in court [Devender @ Sachin v. State of Haryana]..The trial court judge had assumed that the witnesses had given false testimony after noting certain contradictions between the statements given by the witnesses at the police station and in the courtroom. He had, therefore, also imposed a ₹500 fine on them. A Bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjay Vashisth strongly criticized the conduct of the Additional Sessions Judge in Hisar for mishandling these witness statements. The High Court described the trial court judge’s approach as extremely shocking and painful."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 observed.The Bench proceeded to refer the matter to the High Court's Chief Justice for administrative action and suggested that the trial court judge may need training..The Court took note of the issue while reviewing a plea filed by a juvenile seeking the suspension of his sentence during the pendency of his appeal. The juvenile had been tried as an adult in a murder case and, as a result, had been sentenced to life imprisonment..The appellant argued that the order passed by a Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), which declared him fit to be tried as an adult, was flawed as it did not meet the requirements outlined in Section 15 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. In this regard, his counsel highlighted that the JJB did not conduct any psychological assessment of the then 17-year-old appellant. The appellant further contended that after the JJB passed the order, it was essential for the Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, to conduct a proper inquiry in accordance with Section 19(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, to assess whether the minor was aware of the consequences of his actions and whether he should be tried as an adult.The High Court eventually concluded that the JJB's and the trial court's decision to try the appellant as an adult was flawed and stood vitiated.The Bench further objected to the trial court's assumption that the witnesses who deposed in favor of the accused juvenile were lying to the court.The High Court criticised the trial judge for assuming that earlier statements made out of court were the absolute truth while dismissing in-court testimonies as false. The High Court added that such practices go against the true spirit of criminal jurisprudence.“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,” the Court observed..Since the key eye-witness had turned hostile, the High Court added that the juvenile should not have been sentenced to life imprisonment.Accordingly, the Court suspended the appellant's sentence and granted him bail..Senior Advocate Atul Lakhanpal, along with Advocates Caral and Siddhart Chawla, represented the appellant, while Deputy Advocate General, Apoorv Garg appeared for the State of Haryana..[Read Order]