STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NONAVINAKERE POLICE Vs. SHIVANNA @ TARKARI SHIVANNA
LAWS(SC)-2014-4-93
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KARNATAKA)
Decided on April 25,2014

State Of Karnataka By Nonavinakere Police Appellant
VERSUS
Shivanna @ Tarkari Shivanna Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

ROY J. VAYALAT VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2022-3-62] [REFERRED TO]
MURUGASAMY VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2017-9-8] [REFERRED TO]
MAKSOOD AHMAD VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2024-1-100] [REFERRED TO]
SHAKKEER.M.K VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2014-8-641] [REFERRED TO]
NARINDER KUMAR AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF J&K AND OTHERS [LAWS(J&K)-2019-5-3] [REFERRED TO]
ROY J. VAYALAT VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2022-3-109] [REFERRED TO]
SARITHA S.NAIR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2022-8-22] [REFERRED TO]
MISS A VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2020-10-6] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2022-5-61] [REFERRED TO]
VIKKY VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2021-8-161] [REFERRED TO]
IMRAN SHABBIR GAURI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-3-197] [REFERRED TO]
JIGNESH DHIRENDRABHAI GOSWAMI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2014-11-26] [REFERRED TO]
TARUN JIT TEJPAL VS. STATE OF GOA [LAWS(BOM)-2017-12-230] [REFERRED TO]
ATHULYA VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2019-11-513] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. MATHRU SATERI GURAV [LAWS(KAR)-2022-9-1442] [REFERRED TO]
M. VEERABATHARAPPA VS. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-9-221] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ AHIRWAR S/O SURRA AHIRWAR VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2017-2-210] [REFERRED TO]
EEGA SOUMYA VS. M. MAHENDER REDDY [LAWS(SC)-2022-11-105] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Vide order dated 30.08.2013, we had proposed to consider this matter on merit after service of notice to the accused-respondent as we felt acutely concerned as to why the Union of India should not take initiative and steps to evolve a procedure for fast track justice to be adopted by the Investigating Agencies and the Fast Tract Courts by proposing amendments into the Cr.P.C. for speedy justice to the victim.
(2.)We had noted that the Fast Tract Courts no doubt are being constituted for expeditious disposal of cases involving the charge of rape at the trial stage, but we are perturbed and anguished to notice that although there are Fast Tract Courts for disposal of such cases, we do not yet have a fast track procedure for dealing with cases of rape and gang rape lodged under Section 376 IPC with the result that such heinous offences are repeated incessantly.
(3.)We had further observed that there is a pressing need to introduce drastic amendments into the Cr.P.C. in the nature of fast tract procedure for Fast Track Courts when we considered just and appropriate to issue notice and called upon the Union of India to file its response as to why it should not take initiative and sincere steps for introducing necessary amendment into the Cr.P.C., 1973 involving trial for the charge of 'Rape' by directing that all the witnesses who are examined in relation to the offence and incident of rape cases should be straightway produced preferably before the Lady Judicial Magistrate for recording their statement to be kept in sealed cover and thereafter the same be treated as evidence at the stage of trial by producing the same in record in accordance with law which may be put to test by subjecting it to cross-examination. We were and are further of the view that the statement of victim should as far as possible be recorded preferably before the Lady Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. skipping over the recording of statement by the Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to be kept in sealed cover and thereafter the same be treated as evidence at the stage of trial which may be put to test by subjecting it to cross-examination. We are further of the view that the statement of victim should as far as possible be recorded preferably before the Lady Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. skipping over the recording of statement by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. which is any case is inadmissible except for contradiction so that the statement of the accused thereafter be recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused then can be committed to the appropriate Court for trial whereby the trial court can straightway allow cross examination of the witnesses whose evidence were recorded earlier before the Judicial Magistrate.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.