News Updates

U’khand HC Tells Govt To Amend IPC, Frame Rules Under State Police Act 2007 For Better Witness Protection [Read Judgment]

Akanksha Jain
14 May 2018 12:05 PM GMT
U’khand HC Tells Govt To Amend IPC, Frame Rules Under State Police Act 2007 For Better Witness Protection [Read Judgment]
Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

For sake of witnesses, all judicial officers told to hold day-to-day trial or face adverse remarks in ACR

 Observing that witnesses are required to be shown utmost respect and their dignity has to be maintained during investigation and trial, the Uttarakhand High Court has passed a string of directions, including payment of reasonable travel allowance on date of recording of statement, adequate protection, installation of security devices like CCTVs and security doors in their houses to ensure their protection.

A bench of Justice Rajiv Sharma and Justice Alok Singh and directed the state government to frame rules under Section 54 of the Uttarakhand Police Act, 2007 (dealing with protection of witnesses) within six months and also make suitable amendment in the Indian Penal Code to punish the persons inducing any witness to give false statement.

Taking note of the minutest of detail on how the witnesses do not even have any place to sit while waiting for their turn to depose, the court has also directed all judicial officers in the state to hold day-to-day trial noting that “unnecessary adjournments are given by the trial courts prolonging the trial and causing mental agony to the witnesses”.

The bench passed the directions while hearing the appeals of three lifers punished by the trial court for murdering a youth named Monu Mishra in July, 2008, due to strained family ties.

The court noted that youth named Manoj, who was with Monu at the time of the incident and who had testified about the incident and recognized the convicts, was cross-examined after a long gap of nine months leading to some contradictions in his statement. Two of the witnesses had turned hostile.

While upholding the conviction and sentence of the three appellants, the high court said, “The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that the trials are not concluded expeditiously. The accused tried to influence the witnesses. The witnesses are threatened of dire consequences. The witnesses are always under threat by the accused. In the instant case also, two witnesses were declared hostile, since they have not supported the case of the prosecution in entirety. The cross-examination of PW1 Manoj was done after nine months. There is urgent need to provide protection to the witnesses to enable them to depose fearlessly.”

The court also noted that the State of Uttarakhand, in a very progressive manner, enacted the Uttarakhand Police Act, 2007 which contains Section 54 qua witness protection and anonymity but it has not framed any rules to give effect to Section 54 of the Act, 2007 for witness protection as a measure of Human Rights Protection.

Emphasising on the need to show respect and give protection to witnesses, the bench passed directions as under:

  1. The State Government is directed to frame the Rules under Section 54 of the Uttarakhand Police Act, 2007 within a period of six months from today and also make suitable amendment in the Indian Penal Code to punish the persons inducing any witness to give false statement and till then:

  2. The State Government is directed that all the witnesses should be paid reasonable amount as travelling allowance on the date of recording of their statements and if the statement spills over to the next date, the boarding and lodging of the witnesses should be provided by the State Government from State Exchequer.

  3. The police is directed to grant protection to the witnesses and their family members during the course of investigation, inquiry, during trial and after the conclusion of trial till the threat persists.

  4. The State Government is also directed to ensure that the material witnesses in heinous and sensitive matters are insured on short-term or long term basis by the State Government to enable them to fearlessly testify before the Court.

  5. All the criminal courts throughout the State of Uttarakhand are directed to hold the trials on day to day basis. The reporting officers are directed to enter adverse remarks in Annual Confidential Reports of the judicial officers who do not hold the trial on day to day basis.

  6. The State Government, while framing the Rules, must ensure to protect the life, liberty, reputation and property of the witnesses as well.

  7. The State Government should install security devices in the witness’s home such as security door CCTVs, alarms, fencing etc.

  8. The police must have emergency contact numbers of witnesses, close protection for the witnesses, regular patrolling around the witness’s house, escort to the Court and from the court to their home with provision of Government vehicle or a State-funded conveyance on the date of hearing.

  9. The State Government should ensure providing a separate room for the witnesses to sit and relax while waiting for their turn to depose during the trial.

  10. The State Government is also directed to change the identity of the witness in heinous/sensitive crimes if there is request made by the witness to conceal his/her identity and also to relocate him/her with a new identity.

Before passing these directions, the bench noted that “According to the 4th Report of the National Police Commission, 1980, the Police Commission has referred to the meager daily allowances payable to witnesses for an appearance in the Courts. It referred to a sample survey carried out in 18 Magistrates’ Courts in one State, which revealed that out of 96,815 witnesses, who attended the Courts during the particular period, only 6,697 were paid some allowance and even for such payment, an elaborate procedure had to be gone through”.

Read the Judgment Here

Next Story