Having Public Witnesses Who Turn Hostile May Do More Harm Than Good: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has observed that while independent public witnesses lend credibility to criminal investigations, their absence is not always fatal to the prosecution case, particularly when the witnesses produced are otherwise truthful and reliable.
Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav remarked that public witnesses often turn hostile, sometimes causing greater damage to the prosecution than their complete absence.
“The legal history, as is contemporary legal system, has seen numerous examples where the so called independent trustworthy, reliable „Public Witness; ruined the deposition and case beyond repair. So having them and not having, has no impact rather, having them and they turning hostile would do more harm than good,” the bench observed.
It was dealing with a 23 years old appeal against conviction in a 2001 robbery and Arms Act case.
The appellant had argued that the alleged recovery of a button-actuated knife from him could not be believed because no independent public witness had been joined during the arrest and seizure proceedings, despite the arrest taking place at a public bus stand.
Addressing the submission, the Court reflected on the recurring defence argument regarding absence of independent public witnesses in criminal trials.
“Why do the system / defence counsels invariably argue the absence of independent Public Witness as a cause to disbelieve the case? What is so sacrosanct about 'Independent Public Witness'…,” the Court remarked.
It acknowledged that an independent witness, being someone with no personal stake in the incident, ordinarily adds credibility to the prosecution case. However, it noted that the criminal justice system has repeatedly witnessed public witnesses turning hostile during trial.
“The emphasis, thus, should be on having a truthful witness,” the Court observed.
On merits, the Court acquitted the appellant of robbery charges due to doubtful test identification parade.
However, it upheld the conviction under the Arms Act after finding the recovery of the prohibited knife proved through the testimonies of police witnesses.
Appearance: Mr. Vipin Kumar Gupta and Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advs. for Appellant; Ms. Kiran Bairwa, APP for State with SI Tamanna PS Vasant Vihar.
Case Title: Rajinder Kumar v. State
Case no.: CRL.A. 654/2003