Court's Duty To Ensure Witnesses Are Not Under Threat: Supreme Court Cancels Accused's Bail After Witnesses Turn Hostile, Orders Fresh Examination

The Supreme Court has cancelled the bail granted to a man accused of conspiring to murder his wife after she refused consent for mutual divorce, upon noticing the "sudden somersault" taken by vital witnesses like the deceased's family members and the accused's history of using influence of police and goons.The Supreme Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and Section 311 of CrPC to order a fresh examination of witnesses.The Court observed- “...it pricks the conscience of this Court. Our attention has been drawn to the fact that there was a gap of around 20 days between the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination of the key witnesses, who are none else than the Appellant (PW1), her daughterVidhya (sister of the Deceased, PW4), and Muniraju (father of the Deceased, PW5). They all have turned hostile and retracted their earlier statements...It cannot be a mere coincidence.”The Court also opined that while it may be reluctant to interfere in a bail order, even if it holds a different view, it will not hesitate to withdraw bail if there is evidence of misuse.It observed, “The Courts are under an onerous duty to ensure that the criminal justice system is vibrant and effective; perpetrators of the crime do not go unpunished; the witnesses are not under any threat or influence to prevent them from deposing truthfully and the victims of the crime get their voices heard at every stage of the proceedings.”The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta was hearing an appeal against the Karnataka High Court judgment which had granted bail to the respondent where he was booked for offenses under sections Sections 109,120B, 201, 302, 450, 454 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code In the present case, Vinutha M.(deceased) and the respondent got married in 2006 and they had a son. The allegations suggest that the husband was involved in an extra-marital affair. Shortly thereafter, she was being harassed and forced to sign divorce papers.Over the years, she filed multiple criminal complaints against Respondent and his family alleging assault and threats including an attempt to kill her. She also alleged that her husband had sent some rowdies to kill her who were caught by the police with axes and chilli powder.Due to continued threats and attacks on her life, the victim sought police protection through the High Court. Her efforts resulted in an order, issued on 8th August 2019, directing the authorities to take necessary action. However, despite her pleas and complaints, she claimed that the police did not respond.Notably, in her complaints, she explicitly accused her husband of arranging a contract killing by paying 15 lakhs. She alleged inaction on the part of local police, causing fear for her life.Tragically, she was found dead on 21st December 2019, in her apartment. Although the initial FIR did not include charges under Section 302 of IPC, a subsequent complaint from the victim's mother led to the registration of a new FIR.The police submitted the final report on 01.03.2020 against 4 persons, including the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 120B, 201, 302, 450, and 454 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The respondent was eventually arrested and applied for bail. The High Court granted him bail, noting that he had only been charged with offenses under Sections 109 and 120B of IPC in the most recent FIR. The court cited the lack of evidence to prove a criminal conspiracy, leaving this matter to the trial stage.As the case continued to unfold, some disturbing events came to light including delay in trial and examination of witnesses. The Court noted that notice in this SLP was issued in 2021 but it could only be taken up in 2023.Most significantly, it noted that the key witnesses had turned hostile. The Court noted that it was the appellant, who had been actively pursuing the appeal for the cancellation of bail given to the respondent by explicitly naming him as the primary conspirator in her daughter's murder. The Court found her abrupt change of testimony to be astonishing.The Court observed “Her sudden somersault, therefore, cannot be easily detached from the chain of allegations made against Respondent in the past, of influencing the police, hiring goons, repeatedly assaulting the Deceased, and various attempts to take away her life. All of it suggests that the respondent has the potential to influence the investigation or the witnesses who were slated to depose against him. ”The Supreme Court, recognizing the delicate balance between the fundamental right to liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution and the societal commitment to the rule of law, has a limited scope of interference in cases involving the cancellation of bail.SC revokes bail after accused found influencing witnesses: Reiterates parameters for cancellation of bailThe Court redefined the parameters that constitute "cogent and...

Court's Duty To Ensure Witnesses Are Not Under Threat: Supreme Court Cancels Accused's Bail After Witnesses Turn Hostile, Orders Fresh Examination

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Court's Duty To Ensure Witnesses Are Not Under Threat: Supreme Court Cancels Accused's Bail After Witnesses Turn Hostile, Orders Fresh Examination

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers