The absence of a witness protection system in the country is causing rise in unmerited acquittals in the country, the Supreme Court has said, echoing concerns that the Government has not taken serious note of apex court’s 2006 ruling emphasising the need for protecting witnesses in crucial trials.
The Court was presented with a telling account of how witnesses could be bought over by the accused in a case of dowry death, where the parents of the girl turned hostile cooking up a story of their own to disprove the prosecution case. Shocked by the reversal of statement by the girl’s parents, the apex court was appalled to note, “If they were threatened by the appellant (husband) and were forced to depose in his favour it is a sad reflection on our system which leaves witnesses unprotected.”
Unfortunately, the trial court in Karnataka where the incident took place on October 17, 1991 acquitted the husband taking into account the fact that victims’ parents had denied the sequence of events mentioned in the dying statement. The victim Gowramma in her statement to the doctor attending her and the police officer, who recorded her version at the hospital, stated unambiguously that her husband poured kerosene on her and lit fire.
The Karnataka High Court found the evidence of the doctor and police to be sufficient to reverse the acquittal. The parents cooked up a story that their daughter caught fire accidentally while heating water on stove. Referring to the conduct of the parents, bench of Justices Ranjana P Desai and Madan B lokur said, “It is sad that even parents did not stand by their daughter. We do not understand how a woman, particularly a mother, turned her back on the daughter…the reason why witnesses so frequently turn hostile need to be ascertained. There is no witness protection plan in place.”
Drawing link between the need of a witness protection system and rise in acquittals, Justice Desai, who wrote the judgment said, “Unless the witnesses are protected, the rise in unmerited acquittals cannot be checked. It is unfortunate that this important issue has not received necessary attention.”
The judgement cited 2006 decision in Zahira Habibullah case where the SC laid down that at least a start could be made to protect witnesses in cases involving high and mighty. Five months later, the law Commission presented its 198th report on Witness Identity Protection and Witness Protection Programme, still kept pending with a Parliamentary Standing Committee.
The Commission identified three categories of witnesses, namely: victim-witnesses known to the accused, victim-witnesses not known to the accused and lastly, witnesses whose identity is not known to the accused. The Commission identified the second and third category of witnesses to be at serious risk of life and recommended them security at all stages of a criminal case, from investigation till trial.