In the maze of criminal equity of today, where the weight of verification lies intensely on the Prosecution, the whole value of a criminal case relies upon the observer therefore witness protection is necessaryary. On the off chance that the observer isn’t accessible, the arraignment witness consequently falls flat. Because of a long slip by of time emerging out of the multi-dimensional causes, many observers either terminate or change their current spot of the home, a couple of witnesses whenever come they are fear going to court, due to torturing and entering Cross assessments. An observer is not shielded from such circumstances. Witness badgering is additionally conspicuous from the announced choices of the Supreme Court.
In Court, they are irritated by some blamed individuals differently. An observer needs to seem a few times. Indeed, even in certain circumstances disregarding a few attendances by biting the dust observers, their assessment in boss has not all been begun by any stretch of the imagination, because of the shortfall of the legal advisor of the blamed on the ground for commitment in Sessions case or the like in the appointed authority’s Court.
An observer for the State among different causes being unexamined needs to travel every which way back to his home a few times simply because of famous stunts took on by some charged people. Regularly the questioning of an observer isn’t finished in a day and a few dates are fixed for interrogation of the Witness.
Witness Protection.
This observer consequently needs to go to Court a few times, however, Section 309(2), CRPC second stipulation states: Provided further that when witnesses are in participation no suspension or delay will be in truth, without looking at them, aside from unique motivations to be recorded as a hard copy. This shows that a specialist witness should be inspected and states that the assessment of the observer is an exemption. Why an observer isn’t inspected, Spl reason ought to be allocated by the Magistrate, in his request – sheet expressing purposes behind non – assessment of the observer notwithstanding his quality in the Courtroom. On the off chance that disregarding such countless obstacles in a criminal preliminary, an observer again appears he needs to look much of the time cruel, debasing, annoying and Lacerating interrogations.
In the event that an observer isn’t shielded from all such embarrassment and provocation no observer will come later on. All Ld. Judges will be not kidding and resolved in such a manner in securing these observers, by noticing the choices of the Hon’ble Apex Court. No observer will come in the future in the criminal court if such a situation is permitted to proceed for quite a long time together. There is no particular enactment in such manner either in the Criminal Procedure Code or in the Indian Evidence Act or in the Indian Penal Code for the assurance of witnesses. An observer will be treated with human poise at the hour of questioning, he will be treated with deference.
In all offenses where a lady turns into a casualty in cases under Sections 354,376, 498 – A, 494 and 509 IPC, and so on, a lady needs to confront all the time offending rounds of questioning contacting her person as the lone guard. The Indian Evidence Act.1872 in Section 155(4) depicts when a man is arraigned for the by and large unethical person. How clever law has been made here? A lady who has been assaulted has gone to Court for looking for equity, and all things considered, she is being assaulted in questioning in the Courtroom for the second time. A kind of savage joy is determined by such interrogations of an honest casualty by putting inquiries for making her an unethical lady. Is it not assault on equity? How long this Section 155 ( 4 ) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 will stay in presence in an enlightened nation like India? The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Singh observed:
“The inference drawn by the trial Court that the more probability is that the prosecutrix was a girl of loose character when based on no evidence and not even on a denied suggestion lacks sobriety expected of a judge. Have the potential of not only discouraging and even otherwise the reluctant victim of sexual assault to bring forth complaints about the trial of criminals, thereby making society suffer by letting the criminal escape even a trial. Recording such findings which have large repercussions so for as the future of the victim of the sex crime is concerned and even wider implications on the society as a whole where the victim of a crime is discouraged – the criminal is encouraged and in turn, crime gets rewarded Even in cases where there is some acceptable material on record to show that the victim was habituated to sexual intercourse, no such inference like the victim being a girl of a loose moral character is permissible to be drawn from that circumstance alone. Even if the prosecutrix in a given case has been promiscuous in her sexual behavior earlier, she has a right to refuse to submit herself to sexual intercourse with anyone and everyone. No stigma should be cast against such a witness by the Courts for, after all, it is the accused and not the victim of the sex crime who is on trial in the Court. “
Hon’ble Justice KT Thomas and RP Sethi of the Apex Court in a recent case directed that if a witness was present in a trial court, he must be examined on that day itself, putting an end to the harassment of witnesses due to adjournments. Their Lordships further observed witnesses tremble on getting summons from Courts, in India, not because they fear examination or cross-examination in Courts but because of the fear that they might not be examined at all for several days and on such days they would be nailed to the precincts of Courts awaiting their chance of being examined.” Justice KT. Thomas added: “(Source- Art of Cross-Examination Book)
The sub-ordinate legal executive should follow this invite judgment of the Honorable Apex Court by shielding the observers from provocation. On the off chance that an observer tends Court without getting any calls he can’t be inspected in the Court, such ought not to be the conviction of the legal officers. There is no law in such manner that an observer must be inspected if and just in the event that he gets a request from the Court. For boosting up the criminal equity of today an observer should be analyzed on his day of appearance else, it will be treated as a method of witness-badgering as opposed to eliminating legal shackles.
