Explain why witness not asked to identify accused: Punjab and Haryana High Court to judge

Saurabh Malik

Advertisement

Chandigarh, March 30

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed an Additional Sessions Judge to submit his explanation after noticing apparent negligence on his part in a murder case.

Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan of the High Court asserted that it was mandatory for the court and the public prosecutor concerned to ask question from an eyewitness regarding the identification of the accused. But the judicial officer failed to do the same during the course of the hearing in the matter.

Prosecution failure

It is surprising that the identification of the accused facing the trial and present in the court was “not got done” by the prosecution witness. Justice Arvind Sangwan, Punjab & Haryana HC

Justice Sangwan also ordered Haryana Director Prosecution to submit a reply about the guidelines issued to all District Attorney/ Deputy District Attorney/ Additional District Attornies in this regard. He was further directed to seek an explanation from the District Attorney/DDA/ADA concerned.

The matter was brought to Justice Sangwan’s notice after an accused filed a regular bail plea in a case registered for murder and other offences in August 2019 at the Uklana police station in Hisar.

As the case came up for resumed hearing before Justice Sangwan’s Bench, an affidavit, filed by Barwala Deputy Superintendent of Police, was taken on record. The counsel for the petitioner, during the course of arguments, also referred to the statement of an eyewitness in the case.

Referring to his examination-in-chief, Justice Sangwan asserted that neither the District Attorney concerned, who was getting the statement recorded on that day, nor the Additional Sessions Judge/the presiding officer “surprisingly” noticed the fact that the identification of the accused facing the trial and present in the court was “not got done” by the prosecution witness.

“It appears to be a deliberate attempt on part of the District Attorney to help the accused and negligence on part of the Additional Sessions Judge in not adhering to the fact that despite guidelines issued, it is mandatory for the court as well as the Public Prosecutor concerned to ask question for the identification of the accused done from the eye-witness,” Justice Sangwan said.