/>

It’s for state to protect witnesses in criminal cases: Supreme Court

Especially in sensitive cases against those whose in power who could wield money and muscle power

Updated - December 04, 2021 11:38 pm IST - NEW DELHI:

Unless witnesses are protected, the increase in unmerited acquittals in criminal cases cannot be checked, the Supreme Court has pointed out.

Unless witnesses are protected, the increase in unmerited acquittals in criminal cases cannot be checked, the Supreme Court has pointed out.

Unless witnesses are protected, the increase in unmerited acquittals in criminal cases cannot be checked, the Supreme Court has pointed out.

“It is unfortunate that this [witness protection] important issue has not received necessary attention, and the time has come for the state to bestow serious attention on it,” said a Bench of Justices Ms. Ranjana Desai and Madan B. Lokur.

Writing the judgment, Justice Ranjana Desai said: “This appeal [in the instant case], again like many other appeals, presents before us the plight of a woman who has been burnt to death by her husband. Sadly, her parents turned hostile in court. This raises the serious question of witness protection… which is not addressed as yet.”

Citing an earlier judgment, the Bench said: “The state has a definite role to play in protecting witnesses,… at least in sensitive cases involving those in power, who have political patronage and could wield muscle and money power, to avert the trial getting tainted and derailed and the truth becoming a casualty.”

As a protector of its citizens, the state had to ensure that during a trial, the witness presented the truth without fear of being haunted by those against whom he deposed, the Bench said.

In the instant case, Anjappa was acquitted by a trial court in Karnataka of the charge of burning his wife Gowramma to death after dousing her with kerosene. On appeal, the Karnataka High Court awarded him six-year imprisonment.

Dismissing Anjappa’s appeal against this judgment, the Supreme Court said: “It is well settled that an order of acquittal is not to be set aside lightly.” However, it would “have to be disturbed if it is perverse.”

There was no doubt that Gowramma’s parents “were either won over by the appellant or pressurised” into supporting him. “Their evidence is a tissue of lies. In any case, even if it is obliterated and kept out of consideration, there is sufficient other evidence on record to establish the appellant’s guilt,” the Bench said.

Anjappa’s “bail bonds stand cancelled. He shall surrender before the court concerned to serve out the remaining sentence.”

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.