Punjab and Haryana High Court: Non-examination of witnesses perpetual problem in many cases

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, December 17

The non-examination of witnesses is a perpetual problem in so many cases, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted, while making it clear that having in place “some mechanism” to ensure their timely examination in criminal trials would be appropriate.

Put mechanism in place

It will be appropriate that some mechanism is put in place to ensure timely examination of witnesses in criminal trials. Justice Rajbir Sehrawat

In an attempt to cut the delay in the deposition of witnesses, Justice Rajbir Sehrawat directed the Hoshiarpur SSP to file an affidavit, elaborating upon the current mechanism. He was also asked to furnish the details of officers responsible for taking a decision “as to the turn of witness for summoning and examination before the court during the trial”.

The direction came in a matter where Justice Sehrawat initially stayed the payment of salary to the investigating officer and the public prosecutor conducting the case. The order was to remain in operation till all prosecution witnesses were examined.

Justice Sehrawat had observed that the public prosecutor and the investigating officer of the case had not performed their duties with due promptitude. As such, they “deserved to be put under some coercive conditions so as to compel them to complete the process of the trial as soon as possible”.

The petitioner in the case was seeking bail pending trial in the FIR registered on July 26, 2018, for kidnapping and other offences under Sections 363, 366-A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code at the City police station in Hoshiarpur district.

Justice Sehrawat had on September 12 observed that the petitioner had already been in custody for more than four years, but not even a single witness had been examined. His liberty could not be jeopardised by the prosecution’s casualness, particularly when the allegations were that the prosecutrix had visited several places and stayed in hotels after going and remaining with him for full one week.

“Even if the petitioner is guilty, that has to be so held by a court of law by conducting trial in right earnest and due promptitude. However, the prosecution has abjectly failed in doing its duty of conducting prosecution proceedings appropriately,” Justice Sehrawat had added, while granting bail.

As the case came up for resumed hearing, the Hoshiarpur SSP submitted that all prosecution witnesses had since been examined. Nothing was required to be done on the prosecution’s part.