In purview of protecting the witnesses from the 'culture of compromise', the Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that when the Trial Court can exercise its power under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to summon any witness, then it can also regulate the sequence in which the witnesses are to be examined.
The single-judge bench Justice G.S. Ahluwalia castigated the above trend and further observed that the provision of Sections 225, 226 and 301 of Cr.P.C. would not eclipse the power of the Trial Court to make an attempt to find out the truth.
"The Trial Court must rise to the occasion to protect the witnesses from the culture of compromise. Withholding of eyewitnesses for no good reason, may compel the witnesses to become prey of the culture of compromise."
The Court was deciding on a second application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed for grant of bail. The applicant was a murder accused charged under Sections 302, 201, 147, 148, 149 of IPC. He filed the bail app[lication mainly on the ground that the witnesses who were cited as eyewitnesses are not being examined by the prosecution.
Previoulsy, the State Counsel was directed to verify as to why a certain someone was not being summoned as witness. He informed the Court that the Public Prosecutor conducting the trial has informed him that since he was interested to get other witness examined first, therefore, he did not include the subject-person's name along with one other.
However, now the case is fixed for 13.10.2022 and on the said date he would include the names of above-mentioned two eyewitnesses in the list of witnesses.
In view of the statement made by the counsel for the State, the counsel for the applicant sought permission of this Court to withdraw this application.
The Court while examining this prayer, at the outset noted that the role of the Court is not merely a mute spectator but its duty is to seek truth.
"The Court should be alert during criminal trial. An offence is against the society and the Court cannot sit 3 idol and cannot act merely at the pleasure of the Public Prosecutor. It is true that the Sessions Trial is to be conducted by the Public Prosecutor but the Court must be vigilant enough to issue instructions to the Public Prosecutor in case if it is found that the Public Prosecutor is not acting in accordance with law."
Noting that Eyewitnesses are the ears and eyes of the Court, it stated that nowadays it is being observed that the examination of eyewitnesses are being delayed for certain reasons
"The delay in examination of eyewitness is not in the interest of criminal justice dispensation system. This Court was unable to understand as to why the Public Prosecutor adopted the method of withholding eyewitnesses and why he gave preference to those witnesses whose evidence can at the most be said to be corroborative in nature."
Referrence was made to Sister Mina Lalita Baruwa Vs. State of Orissa and others, 2013 Latest Caselaw 847 SC, Ramesh and Others Vs. State of Haryana, 2016 Latest Caselaw 828 SC
The Court also mentioned wherein the Supreme Court has formulated the witness protection scheme, therefore, the protection to a witness is a paramount consideration and the Court should be aware of the fact that there may be various factors compelling the witnesses to turn hostile.
The Court accoedingly passed suitable directions and dismissed the petition as withdrawn under the hope and belief that the Public Prosecutor would certainly pray for issuance of summons/bailable warrants/warrants to the eyewitnesses and if no such prayer is made by the Public Prosecutor, then the Trial Court shall issue summons to the witnesses.
CASE TITLE:SHAMBHU alias SHIMBHU vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
CASE DETAILS: MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE NO.45036 OF 2022
CORAM:Justice G.S. Ahluwalia
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
