2004 (5) TMI 573 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the High Court given a correct direction to the State Government to issue circulars to all the police stations instructing the police officials that the woman accused/witness should not be summoned or required to attend at any police station under Section 160 Cr.P.C. but they must be enquired only by women police or in the presence of a women police, at the places where they reside?

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the power of police officers to require attendance of witnesses.
2. Legality of High Court's direction to not summon woman accused/witness under Section 160 Cr.P.C.
3. Validity of High Court's findings on confession, recovery of evidence, and police custody.
4. Error in awarding compensation and directing departmental action against police personnel.
5. Importance of judicial restraint and discipline in making observations and directions beyond the scope of the case.

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the interpretation of Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, emphasizing that the section pertains to witnesses and not the accused. It clarifies that the intention of the legislature was to facilitate evidence collection, not to summon the accused for answering charges. The police are authorized to require the personal attendance of suspects during investigations, but the section does not apply to accused individuals who cannot be examined as witnesses against themselves.

2. The High Court's direction to prevent summoning woman accused/witnesses under Section 160 Cr.P.C. was deemed erroneous as it contradicted the statutory provisions applicable only to witnesses, not the accused. The judgment highlights that expanding the scope of Section 160 to include the accused could hinder investigations, especially in cases involving women accused, potentially leading to ineffective inquiries into serious offenses.

3. The judgment criticizes the High Court's findings on confession, recovery of evidence, and police custody in the case. It notes that the High Court prematurely concluded on the evidentiary value of police actions before a full-fledged trial, hindering the investigative process and potentially impacting the course of justice. The error in setting aside the order granting police custody and discrediting the confession and recovery was highlighted as premature and detrimental to the investigation.

4. The judgment scrutinizes the High Court's decision to award compensation and direct departmental action against police personnel, deeming it unjustified. It emphasizes that awarding compensation to an individual facing serious charges like murder before trial commencement lacks justification. Additionally, the directive for immediate departmental action against police personnel was considered unwarranted in light of setting aside the High Court's judgment.

5. The judgment underscores the importance of judicial restraint and discipline in making observations and directions within the scope of the case. It cites previous decisions emphasizing that courts should avoid unjustifiable remarks and directions beyond the case's ambit, as such actions can impede justice and inconvenience litigants. The need for judges to maintain sobriety, moderation, and respect in their pronouncements is highlighted to uphold the judiciary's independence and credibility.