Karnataka HC Issues Norms for Chargesheets, Acquits Home Guard in POCSO Case

The Karnataka High Court has held that investigating officers have a legal duty to assess whether sufficient material exists against an accused before submitting a chargesheet, describing their role at that stage as functioning essentially as a "pre-trial judge."

A Division Bench comprising Justice Mohammad Nawaz and Justice G Basavaraja made the observations while allowing a criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The court acquitted a Home Guard who had previously been sentenced to life imprisonment following convictions for kidnapping, aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, and offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

While setting aside the conviction, the High Court noted that a contradictory statement made by the victim had not been furnished to the accused. The Bench also found no indication that the investigating officer had examined the statement prior to filing the chargesheet.

Observing that similar lapses have repeatedly surfaced in criminal appeals, the Bench issued six mandatory directions to ensure that witness statements recorded under Section 164(5) of the CrPC—corresponding to Section 183(5) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)—are properly preserved, scrutinized by investigators, and shared with the defense.

Under the directions, Magistrates must ensure that statements recorded under Section 164(5) are securely preserved. Investigating officers are required to examine these statements before filing a final report. If an officer requests a certified copy from the Magistrate or Special Judge, it must be supplied without delay.

The court emphasized that investigating officers must determine whether the statement supports or contradicts the prosecution's case. In instances where a witness makes no statement incriminating the accused, the officer must independently determine whether sufficient evidence remains to proceed with prosecution.

The Bench further instructed trial courts to ensure accused individuals receive all mandatory documents under Section 207(iv) of the CrPC, including copies of Section 164(5) statements, upon appearing before a Magistrate, Sessions Judge, or Special Judge.

The High Court ordered that the judgment be circulated among judicial officers presiding over criminal trials across Karnataka and placed before the President of the Karnataka Judicial Academy for trainee judges. It also directed the judgment to be sent to the Additional Chief Secretary of the Home Department for distribution to investigating officers statewide through the Director General and Inspector General of Police.