|
Introduction
The role of a witness is paramount in the criminal justice system
of any
country. According to Bentham, witnesses are the
"eyes and ears of
justice". In the words of Wadwa,J.
"A criminal case is built on the edifice of evidence, evidence
that is
admissible in law. For that witnesses are required, whether it is
direct
evidence or circumstantial evidence."
Given the importance of witnesses in the trial process, any law,
aimed
at redressing the problem of "hostile witness", should be
comprehensive,
with a view to eradicate the menace. In systems of proof based on
the
English common law tradition, almost all evidence must be
sponsored by a
witness, who has sworn or solemnly affirmed to tell the truth. The
bulk
of the law of evidence regulates the types of evidence that may be
sought from witneseses and the manner in which the interrogation
of
witnesses is conducted during direct examination and
cross-examination
of witnesses.
Today all persons are presumed to be qualified to serve as
witnesses in
trials and other legal proceedings, and all persons are also
presumed to
have a legal obligation to serve as witnesses if their testimony
is
sought. Witness competence rules are legal rules that specify
circumstances under persons are ineligible to serve as witnesses.
For
example, neither a judge nor a juror is competent to testify in a
trial
in which they are serving in that capacity; and in jurisdictions
with a
dead man statute, a person is deemed not competent to testify as
to
statements of or transactions with a deceased opposing party.
If a witness himself is incapacitated from acting as the eyes and
ears
of justice, the trial gets putrefied and paralysed, and can no
longer
constitute a fair trial. The incapacitation may be due to several
factors, such as the witness/victim not being in a position to
speak the
truth in court for reasons beyond the control of the witness or
due to
negligence or ignorance or some corrupt collusion.
This submission firstly analyzes the purpose behind the coinage of
the
term 'hostility' and thereafter discusses the recommendations made
by
the Malimath Committee Report on "Committee on Reform of Criminal
Justice System" and similar statutory provisions like The Code of
Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005. There are opinions
expressed
by scholars on the issue. I have tried to put forth my personal
point of
view with the help of those opinions.
Who is a hostile witness?
It can demolish the most painstakingly constructed of cases, it
can
waste the time of courts, and it can allow criminals to walk free,
making a mockery of the investigative process. It's the problem of
a
witness turning hostile. Hostility is one form of perjury. A
hostile
witness is one who's provided an eyewitness account of a criminal
event
or other information to help the prosecution build a case, but has
later
turned in court, giving a different version of events or
contradictory
information. A witness is termed hostile, when he gives a certain
statement on his knowledge about commission of a crime before the
police
but refutes it when called as witness before the court during
trial. The term "hostile" witness has it's genesis in the Common Law. The
function of the term was, to provide adequate safeguard against
the
"contrivance of an artful witness" who willfully by hostile
evidence
"ruin the cause" of the party calling such a witness. It was felt
that
such actions are per se destructive, not only of the interests of
the litigating parties, but also in the quest of the courts to
meet the ends
of justice. According to English statutory law the offence of
hostility
is recognized as perjury as per the Perjury Act, 1911. It states
that a
person is guilty of the crime of perjury if, lawfully sworn as a
witness
or an interpreter in a judicial proceeding; he lawfully makes a
statement material in that proceeding which he knows to be false
or does
not believe to be true.
It is pertinent to mention, that the
"safeguard" as envisaged
under the
Common Law, consisted of contradicting witnesses with their
previous
statements or impeaching their credit (which normally as a rule
was not
allowed) by the party calling such witnesses. To initiate the
"safeguard", it was imperative to declare such a witness as
"hostile".
For this purpose, Common Law laid down certain peculiarities of a
'hostile' witness, such as," not desirous of telling the truth at
the
instance of the party calling him" or " the existence of a
'hostile
animus' to the party calling such a witness." Thus there are three
specific prerequisites to judge the degree of hostility of
witnesses as
per sec.191 IPC which are as under:
[1] Whether there is a legal obligation to state the truth or not;
[2] Whether there is any making of false statement; and
[3] Whether there is any belief in its falsity.
Why Do Witnesses Turn Hostile?
Today the main cause for the high acquittal rate in our criminal
justice
system is the witness turning hostile. In order to get rid of this
cross
examination as early as possible, either the witness will give
false
statements or to make the matter worse, he will turn hostile i.e.
he
will retract from his previous statement. And in case of latter,
Mr.
Soli Sorabjee, the former Attorney General has rightly said,
Nothing shakes public confidence in the
criminal justice delivery system more then the collapse of the
prosecution owing to witnesses turning hostile and retracting
their previous statements.
One of the main reasons for the large percentage of acquittals in
criminal cases is of witnesses turning hostile and giving false
testimony in criminal cases. But why do the witnesses turn
hostile.
Generally the reason is the unholy combination of money and muscle
power, intimidation and monetary inducement.
There are a number of reasons for a witness turning hostile, the
major
one being the absence of police protection during and after the
trial.
The witness is afraid of facing the wrath of convicts who may be
well
connected. Another reason is the inordinate delay in disposal of
cases.
It protracts the witnesses' ordeal. Intimidation is also one of
the
causes of witnesses turning hostile. But it is difficult to accept
that
what they perceive as harassment from the long trial and the way
they
are treated in court can make them hostile. Inducements in cash
and kind
appear to play an important role in witnesses turning hostile.
It was observed by Wadhwa, J , "Here are the witnesses who are a
harassed lot. A witness is not treated with respect in the Court.
He is
pushed out from the crowded courtroom by the peon. He waits for
the
whole day and then finds the matter adjourned. He has no place to
sit
and no place even to have a glass of water. And when he does
appear in
the Court, he is subjected to prolonged and unchecked examination
and cross-examination and finds himself in a hapless situation.
For all
these reasons and others a person abhors becoming a witness.
Observations of the Delhi High Court that witness in a large
number of
cases were turning hostile due to "intimidation and threat"
needs to be noted. The Home Ministry in its affidavit admitted
that in all important cases witnesses were under constant threat
from criminals. There is a need to take steps to stop harassment of the witness,
so
that he does not feel frustrated. There is also urgent need to
provide
adequate protection to the witness from intimidation by
criminals, the
affidavit said.
Psychological studies carried on witnesses seem to suggest that
grueling
cross-examination, frequent adjournments; courtroom-intimidations
are
some of the major reasons that force a witness to turn hostile.
The
successful working of the criminal justice system depends
critically on
the willingness of individuals to furnish information and tender
evidence without being intimidated or bought. As symbolised by
Zahira
Sheikh's flip-flops in the Best Bakery case, the threat of
retaliation ,
which could include physical violence, is a major reason why
witnesses
(some of them victims) do not cooperate. That case sparked off a
nationwide debate on the need for witnesses to be protected by the
state. But it is not intimidation alone that makes witnesses turns
hostile.
As studies have shown, what witnesses perceive as harassment
alienates
them as well. The length of the trial and the way they are treated
in
court have a bearing on shifting testimonies. As the Supreme Court
has
observed , A witness is not treated with respect in the Court...
He
waits for the whole day and then finds the matter adjourned... And
when
he does appear, he is subjected to unchecked examination and
cross-examination and finds himself in a hapless situation.
Incidents of Hostility-Then & Now
A classic case of a witness turning hostile, which shook the
fundamental
principles of our criminal justice system, was the repeated
retraction
of statements by Zahira Sheikh and the circumstances forcing her
to do
so in the Best Bakery retrial case . Instances of witnesses
turning
hostile are so widespread in our system that in 2000 the Supreme
Court
observed, "It has become a way of life in the law courts". It is
indeed
one of the most important factors responsible for so many
acquittals in
criminal cases.
The verdict in Jessica's case and a series of related incidents in
the
recent past bring to mind Karl Marx's words:
"History repeats itself first as tragedy and then as farce."
In the sensational cases like the BMW and Jessica Lal murder case
and
most recently, the Best bakery case, where the Human Rights
Commission
intervened when the witnesses changed their statements in the
court due
to lack of protection to them and their families whereas in the
earlier
cases, i.e. the BMW and Jessica Lal case, most of the eye
witnesses did
not open up to pin point the possible reason which compelled them
to
change their stand. The fact is that the accused to intimidate the
witnesses because there was and is no program available under
which
after the assessment of the need for protection to a particular
witness,
the administration could give him/her the requisite security
cover.Lawyers say the number of cases in India in which witnesses turn
hostile
is large. In India, you need to prove a case to get justice and
witnesses are often the basic foundation of proof, says Pavan
Duggal, a
Supreme Court lawyer and expert in cyber law and technology. In
such
cases, when witnesses turn hostile, there is little chance of
getting a
conviction. A report by the parliamentary standing committee on
home
affairs tabled in Parliament earlier this year had pointed out
that the
conviction rate in criminal cases may be as low as 10 per cent due
to
perjury by witnesses who do so either of their own volition or
under
threats, allurements, or inducements from others.
Legal experts say that while high-profile cases where witnesses
turn
hostile get media attention, it happens quite a lot in other cases
too.
In recent years, the BMW case and the Jessica Lal murder case in
New Delhi and the Best Bakery case provide examples of witnesses
who said
one thing to police officers but changed their stories in court.
Experts
say the absence of a witness protection programme in India makes
it
possible for the accused in a case to threaten or intimidate
witnesses.
It was rightly observed by Arijit Pasayat J. All this sadly
reflects
on the quality of determination exhibited by the State and the
nature of
seriousness shown to pursue the appeal. Criminal trials should not
be
reduced to be the mock trials or shadow boxing of fixed trials.
Judicial
Criminal Administration System must be kept clean and beyond the
reach
of whimsical political wills or agendas and properly insulated
from
discriminatory standards or yardsticks of the type prohibited by
the
mandate of the Constitution. Those who are responsible for
protecting
life and properties and ensuring that investigation is fair and
proper
seem to have shown no real anxiety.
Instances of witnesses turning hostile are so widespread in our
system
that in the year 2000 the Supreme Court observed,
"It has become a
way
of life in the law courts". It is indeed one of the most important
factors responsible for so many acquittals in criminal cases. In
the
rape-cum-murder of a Delhi University law student Priyadarshini
Mattoo
in 1996, the judge recorded his displeasure over shoddy work by
the
investigating agency and said: "Though I know that he is the man
who
committed the crime I acquit him, giving him the benefit of
doubt".
At a recent press conference , the Chief Justice of India,
Honorable
Justice YK Sabharwal, who skirted the question of the recent
incidents
of perjury, remarked that, Hostile witness is not a new phenomenon
it
has existed for quite a long time it is a problem of society. He
was of
the opinion that in the judicial system, the courts have their own
limitations. That is why there is so much of discussion. He,
however,
accepted that hostile witness and inordinate delay in trial came
in the
way of law. He added that, the court cannot create its own
evidence.
Basic principles cannot change and courts have to decide only on
the
basis of available evidence. The remedy lay in better
investigation
which could be done by separating law and order duty of the police
from
investigation of cases.
Much consternation has been raised over the lack of rights
accorded to
victims and witnesses. It has been observed that while offenders
have a
range of rights, (both Constitutional and legal), the victims and
more
particularly, witnesses, have a limited range of rights,
(expressed and
implied) certain privileges and protection accorded to them
through the
judicial discretions of the judges.
The asymmetrical distribution of rights has been reflected in
various
cases, where the accused intimidate witnesses (e.g. using subtle
means
like cross-examination), thereby rendering the witnesses helpless
(who
lack sufficient rights to protect themselves under such
circumstances)
and compelling them to turn hostile. It seriously compromises the
prosecution's case, already under a heavy burden to prove the
guilt,
"beyond reasonable doubt". The pervasiveness of the problem is
being
witnessed in various countries in Europe, Scotland, America, etc.
An
important step in this regard has been taken by the U.N.
Declaration of
Basic Principle for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, 198519
which
'inter alia' has laid down the express rights to be granted to
victims
of crime and their witnesses. The European Court in a landmark
case of
"Doorson v. Netherlands", appeared to recognize that witnesses
should be
accorded rights.
Judicial Remedy
The malady afflicting our criminal justice system is much more
deep-rooted. Cosmetic changes just won't do much to deliver
justice. The
system requires a comprehensive revamp. The V S Malimath committee
on
reforms of the criminal justice system prepared an outline for
such a
wide-ranging correction in 2003. For a situation like the
Jessica Lal
case, where witnesses refused to support the prosecution's case,
the
committee has suggested the following measures : -
1. Holding in-camera proceedings,
2. Taking measures to keep identity of witnesses secret,
3. Ensuring anonymity, and
4. Making arrangements to ensure their protection.
5. Witnesses in court should be treated like guests of honour;
6. They should be adequately compensated for spending money on
travel
and accommodation;
7. Comfort, convenience and dignity of witnesses while deposing in
the
court of law should be ensured; and
8. A law for protection of witnesses should be enacted as there is
no
such law in India.
9. Constitution of a National Security Commission at national
level and
a State security commissions at state level.
Indian & English Legal Scenario:
A witness is an important party in a case apart from the
complainant and
the accused. By giving evidence relating to the commission of an
offence, he performs a sacred duty of assisting the court to
discover
the truth. It is because of this reason that the witness either
takes an
oath in the name of God or solemnly affirms to speak the truth,
the
whole of the truth and nothing but truth. He/she performs an
important
public duty of assisting the court in deciding on the guilt or
otherwise
of the accused in the case. He submits himself to
cross-examination and
cannot refuse to answer questions on the ground the answer will
incriminate him? . He has to give all the information correctly
otherwise he will have to face the trial under Section 191 of the
Indian
Penal Code (hereinafter the IPC) and thereafter may be penalized
under
Section 193-195 of the same for the aforesaid offence. Section 191
is
applicable only when a statement is made by a person bound by an
oath or
by an express provision of law to state the truth, or who is bound
by
law to make declaration upon any subject.
In other words it means that he is under legal obligation to speak
the
truth in view of the oath administered to him or because of the
express
provision of law, which binds him to speak the truth. The Indian
oaths
act, 1873 empowers all courts and all persons having, by law or
consent
of parties, authority to receive evidence and commanding officers
of
military stations to administer oaths and affirmations. The oath
or
affirmation is to the effect that the witness will speak the
truth, whole truth and nothing but truth.
The oath itself must be administered by a person of competent
authority.
But, what is important is the competency of the authority before
which
the statement is made to administer the same. If the competent
authority
either intentionally or advertently fails to administer the oath
to the
person concerned, it does not make the person making the statement
less
obligated to speak the truth. The Supreme Court in
Rameswar Kalyan
Singh
v. State of Rajasthan has observed that the purpose of
administering
the oath to a witness is to bring home the solemnity of the
occasion and
to impress upon him the duty of speaking the truth. Any omission
or
irregularity in the administration of oath shall not invalidate
any
proceeding or render inadmissible any evidence whatsoever.
Thus, even if the competent authority fails to administer the oath
altogether or commits an irregularity in the administration of the
oath,
it does not affect the liability of the person to speak the truth.
If
the person deposes falsely before such competent authority, he is
liable
for prosecution for giving false evidence under this section.
However if
the court concerned had no authority in the first place to
administer an
oath to a witness, this section has no application. Further, the
proceedings must be sanctioned by law. If the proceeding itself is
one
without jurisdiction and not authorised or sanctioned by law, then
any
false statement made therein is not an offence. There are certain
differences of the English law of perjury with the Indian law
which are
as follows:
1. In order to sustain a prosecution under section 191 of I.P.C.;
it is
enough, if the accused had given a false statement contrary to the
oath
or an express provision of law to state the truth or bound by law
to
make a declaration, whereas under the English law prosecution for
perjury is permitted only when there is an an express violation of
the
oath. In India it is merely one of the forms by which a party may
be
bound to speak the truth.
2. In English law, false statement must have been made in judicial
proceeding i.e. before courts. In section 191 I.P.C., it is not so
strictly limited. Under section 191, if a person is legally bound
by
oath or by express provision of law to state the truth and acts
contra,
he will be liable for prosecution. In the I.P.C. the distinction
is
relevant only in determining the degree of punishment to be
imposed.
3. Again as stated before, in English law, perjury must be proved
by two
witnesses or by one witness with other corroborative material
evidence.
Under I.P.C., no particular number of witnesses is required to
sustain
the guilt.
The domestic law differs to a significant degree in this respect.
Firstly, the provision (S.154 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872)
only
talks about permitting "such questions as may be asked in
cross-examination". Secondly, the law nowhere mentions, the need
to
declare a witness as 'hostile' before the provision can be
invoked.
Thirdly, the judicial consideration (under S.154) is only to be
invoked,
when the Court feels that "the attitude disclosed by the witness
is
destructive of his duty to speak the truth". By section 155 of the
evidence act, the credit of a witness may be impeached in the
following
ways by the adverse party, or with consent of the party who calls
him.
Although the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not
specifically provide for the problem of perjury but certainly
under
section 340 it provides for procedure in cases under S. 195
Cr.P.C. and
in section 344 it does provide for a summary procedure for the
trial for
giving false evidence Since the guilt of the accused is proved to
a
great extent on the basis of the evidence or the information given
by
such a witness, therefore perjury or the giving of false evidence
has to
be severely censured. Perjury today has also become a way of life
in the
Courts. In some cases the judge knows that whatever the witness is
saying is not true and is going back on his previous statement.
The
Judge here ignores this fact and does not even file a complaint
against
him. The amount of pending cases of the judges makes them
indifferent
towards the problem. At times they feel that if one or two
witnesses
turn hostile then it would simply ease their burden, as they have
large
number of cases to try. Here if the judge acts as per section 165
of
evidence act then there may be a situation when the witness may be
cross
examined by the judge himself so that he may not be influenced by
the
adverse party. The supreme court in explaining the situation had
opined
in Chandra Pal Singh v. Maharaj Singh , as under: -
...acceptance or rejection of evidence by itself is
not sufficient yardstick to dub the one rejected as false. Falsity
can
be alleged when truth stands out glaringly and to the knowledge of
the
person who is making the false statement. Day in and day out in
courts
averments made by one set of witnesses are accepted and
counter-averments are rejected. If in all such cases, complaints
under
s.199 IPC are to be filed not only they will open up flood gates
of
litigations but it would unquestionably be an abuse of the process
of
the court.
The Malimath Committee Report on "Committee on Reform of Criminal
Justice System" , wherein the Committee emphasized 'inter alia',
"on the
duty of the judge to search for the truth", "
assignation of
pro-active
role to the Judges", "empowering Judges to give directions to
investigative agencies in the matter of investigations"; It should
however be pointed out that the Committee "expressed itself
against a
wholesale transformation to inquisitorial system", it suggested
further
that Section 344 of the Code of criminal procedure, may be
suitably
amended to require the court to try the case summarily once it
forms the
opinion that the witness has knowingly or willfully given false
evidence
or fabricated false evidence with the intention that such evidence
should be used in such proceeding. The Criminal Law Amendment
Bill, 2005
has come into effect. The Act is intended to prevent the evil of
witnesses turning hostile. Hence, sections 161, 162 and 344 have
been
amended by inserting new sections 164A and 344A in the Code of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973.
The amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the
Indian
Evidence Act, 1872 provide that statement made to the Police by
any
person during investigation, if given in writing, is to be signed
and
quickly transmitted to the Magistrate. In all offences punishable
with
death or imprisonment for 7 years or more during investigation,
the
witness has to record his statement before a Magistrate. The
statement
of the witness duly recorded before a Magistrate under oath would
be
treated as evidence at the court's discretion. There would be
summary
trial for perjury with provisions for enhanced punishment.
As the oath of affirmation administration to the witnesses has
become an
empty formality and does not act as a deterrent against making
false
statements by witnesses, it is recommended by the Committee that a
provision should be incorporated requiring the judge administering
the
oath or affirmation to caution the witness that he is in duty
bound,
under Section 8 of the Indian Oaths Act,1873, to speak the truth
and
that if he makes a false statement in violation of the oath or
affirmation that has been administered to him, the court has the
power
to punish him for the offence of perjury and also to inform him of
the
punishment prescribed for the said offence. It is further
recommended
that the High Court may impress upon the subordinate courts of
their
duty to resort to these provisions to curb the menace of perjury,
through training and calling for periodic reports.
From the above, we can conclude that whereas the Common Law seeks
to categorize witnesses as "hostile" or "adverse", for the purpose of
cross-examining, the Indian law endeavours not to make such a
distinction. It is somewhat less rigid than the English law. All
that
the law seeks to do is elicit hidden facts from the witnesses for
the
sole purpose of determining the truth. Also with the help of the
recent
criminal amendment act, 2005 many important legal provisions are
being
formally implemented, which had earlier failed to have been
enforceable
in the criminal justice system for a long time.
Federal Legal Scenario: -
Section 611(c) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, permits a party
to call an adverse or hostile witness during that
party's own case and
to
examine such witness as if on cross-examination. Included under
this
rule are all persons who are identified with an adverse party. It
says
that the leading questions should not be used on the direct
examination
of a witness except as may be necessary to develop the witness?
testimony. Ordinarily leading questions are permitted on
cross-examination. When a party calls a hostile witness, an
adverse
party, or a witness identified with an adverse party,
interrogation may
be by leading questions.
Criteria for Use of Rule 611(c) are as follows:-
The 611(c) witness is most often used to set out definitively
the respondent's defenses, particularly defenses to a discrimination
allegation. The Trial Attorney uses this method to commit or ?pin
down?
the witness in areas which are vulnerable to attack.
A 611(c) witness is sometimes called early in the case to secure
admissions. This can occur when, before other witnesses and
evidence is
presented, the 611(c) witness is unaware of the significance of a
particular fact or point of his/her testimony to the GC's theory
of the
case.
Use of a 611(c) witness may be necessary if the information is
peculiarly within the respondent's knowledge, or to identify
exhibits
such as letters or documents which can be identified only by the
respondent.
Many courts in the United States have applied the Federal Rules of
Evidence to digital evidence in the same way as more traditional
documents, courts have noted very important differences. As
compared to
the more traditional evidence, courts have noted that digital
evidence
tends to be more voluminous, more difficult to destroy, easily
modified,
easily duplicated, potentially more expressive, and more readily
available. As such, most of the courts have started to admit
digital
evidence , as it would lead the witnesses to feel more secure to
give
their statements and refrain them retracting from their previous
statements.
Conclusion
Thus we conclude all that could be inferred from this study is
that we
need to enact strict laws on witness protection keeping in mind
the
needs of the witnesses in our system. The plain fact is that the
level
of professionalism demanded by the witness protection program is
considered to be beyond the capability of our police in the
existing
system, making it as susceptible as it to extraneous influences.
Today,
stringent laws against persons giving false evidence and against
witnesses that turn hostile are very much the need of the hour.
The Jessica Lal murder case provoked a public outcry against
miscarriage
of justice that impelled authorities to reopen the case. The
distortion
in the case was so brazen that even worms turned. Middle class
empathy
with the murdered victim finally aroused public opinion. But it
would be
facile to conclude that India is on the way to reform of its
criminal
justice system. This is just the first half step. The media too
has a
tremendous responsibility. Instead of sensationalising issues,
they must
endeavour to present a constructive and analytical account of such
situations. Besides, there may be similar situations in the
future. And
in order to ensure that justice is delivered, the courts and the
law
should make provisions for guarantying the safety of witnesses.
Also, the public needs to get together and pressurise the
government to
speed up such cases and give its final verdict as soon as
possible. It
is submitted that, 'hostility', under Common Law, was a legal
measure,
resorted to, when witnesses willfully prevaricate, to help the
other
party. However, it has been observed, that witnesses mostly turn
'hostile', on account of "hostile animus" exhibited by the
criminal
justice system towards them.
It is felt that,
'hostility', under such circumstances,
conceptually
differs from what the Common Law had envisaged. That, much needs
to be
done in this regard is evident from the observations made in the
case of
" Van Mechelen" wherein it was observed that, " there had not been
sufficient effort to assess the threat of reprisals"
against
witnesses".
An important step has been taken in this direction with the
recommendations made in the Malimath Committee Report in the
chapter, "A
Hybrid System of Criminal Justice" which 'inter alia' has sought
to
incorporate certain features of the 'inquisitorial" system of
trial into
the 'adversarial' system, namely "empowering judges further with
the
duty of leading evidence with the object of seeking the truth and
focusing on justice to victims."
It is felt that, focusing on
"justice to victims" is possible,
only if
careful consideration is paid to "the rights of witnesses",
"considering
them as a special category of victims" and acknowledging their
insecurity and vulnerability in general, while recognizing that
certain
witnesses may need protection. There is also a need felt of
admitting
new forms of evidence such as the digital evidence, as envisaged
by the
federal rules of evidence, to meet the ever changing needs of the
judiciary. This would not only increase the levels of reliability
of the
evidence but in turn help in speeding up the proceedings of the
cases
under trial.
So to conclude it may be said that the problem of hostile
witnesses in
not a new phenomenon to the judiciary But that does not
necessarily mean
that we have nothing to do against it. The ever changing legal
scenario
demands for effective measures to curb this menace. A proper
planned set
of legislations and their effective implementation would surely
bring
worthwhile results.
It is therefore not a question of funds, as they could be
generated in
due time by some means or the other; but a question put to the
integrity
of the system upon which thrives the sustainability of the witness
protection program as well as the life of the witness and his
family.
If India seeks systemic reform in the criminal justice system, its
leaders must start speaking the truth regardless of officials
getting
exposed. Society changes, so do its values. Crimes are increasing
especially with changes in technology. Ad hoc policy making and
piecemeal legislation is not the answer. Without pain there is
seldom
cure.
Bibliography
Articles Referred:
1. Rajinder Puri; Facing the Truth; Published in Outlook Today
magazine.
2. Suprio Bose; Hostile Witness: A Critical Analysis of Key
Aspects
Hitherto Ignored in Indian Law; published in legal service
India.com.
3. Asif Jalal; Revamp criminal justice system; published in 24th
march
issue of The Times of India, a leading daily.
Acts Referred:
1. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
2. The Indian Penal Code (45 Of 1860)
3. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Books
Referred:
R.V.Kelkar?s Criminal Procedure; Fourth Edition; Eastern
Book
Company
Halsbury?s Laws Of England; Vol 10; third edition; Pg 623
P.SA Pillai; Criminal Law; Ninth Edition; Butterworths
James Vadackumchery; The Police, The People and Criminal
Justice; APH Publishing Corpn.
Websites Referred:
1.
http://www.hindustantimes.com
2.
http://www.outlook.com
3.
http://www.thetimesofindia.com
4.
http://www.thehindu.com
5.
http://www.tribuneindia.com
|
Problem
Of Hostile Witnesses
More
Articles:
The
author can be reached at: mamta_nliu@legalserviceindia.com /
