The Kerala High Court on Monday dismissed a petition filed by Sagar Vincent, one of the witnesses who turned hostile in the actor sexual assault case, seeking a directive to the Crime Branch against harassing or threatening him in connection with the investigation in the case relating to the hatching of a conspiracy to endanger the investigation officers in the assault case.
Justice Anu Sivaraman, however, made it clear that the petitioner shall be summoned only after giving him due notice under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and that he will not be harassed further or summoned unnecessarily except for the purpose of recording his statement.
The court also ordered that the specific provisions in the CrPC, including Sections 160 and 161, and Section 35 of the Police Act, 2011 with regard to the examination of witnesses by the police shall be strictly complied with and the investigation officer shall not compel or induce the petitioner to make any confessions or admissions.
The petitioner said he was being harassed to give a version against the statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC in the actor assault case. Since the petitioner had already given a statement in response to the notice issued to him, the action of the investigation officer in requiring him to give evidence again was completely untenable. He also alleged that he was insisted to disown his earlier statement. As he was refusing to give such a statement, he was being harassed.
Specific case
The court noted that the specific case of the investigating officer was that a further investigation has been ordered in the actor assault case under Section 173(8) of the CrPC and the petitioner had been summoned only to give evidence in the further investigation.
The prosecution contended that during the further investigation, some evidence was seized by the investigating officer with respect to the petitioner, which requires a further statement to be recorded from the petitioner. Though notice was served under Section 160 of the CrPC to the petitioner to appear before the investigating officer, the petitioner did not appear and had issued replies raising allegations against the investigation.
