Provided; that no such answer which a witness shall be compelled to give, shall subject him to any arrest or prose certain, or be proved against him in any criminal proceeding except a prosecution for giving false evidence by such answer. Section According to Section 1 , any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case can be orally examined - a By a police officer making an investigation of the case, or b On there question of such officer, by any police officer not be love such rank as the state court may be According to Section 2 Such person shall be bound to answer truly all questions relating to such case put to him by such officer other than questions the answers to which would have a tendency to expose him to a criminal charge or to a penalty or for feature.
According to Section 3 - The police officer may reduce into writing any statement made to him in the course of an examination under this section; and if he does so he shall make a separate and true record of the statement of each such person whose statement he records.
It was held in Zaheera Habibullah Sheikh Vs State of Gujrat that in case of examination of witness by police it is not obligatory on the part of police Officer to record and statement made to him and it need not be recorded in the large age known to the person giving statement, further the person making statement was not required to sign the statement.
Section Absconding to avoid service of summons, notice or order proceeding from any public servant legally competent, as such public servant, to issue such summons notice or order, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees or with both.
Or if the summons or notice or order is to attend in persons or by agent or to produce a document or an electronic recordin a court of justice with simple imprisonments for a term which may extend to size months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Section Intentional omission to give information of offence by person bound to inform - Who ever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed intentionally omits to give any information respecting that offence which he is legally bound to give shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to size months or with fine or with both.
Section - Giving false information respecting an offence committed. Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence which he knows or believes to be false shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both.
Section -4 Oaths or affirmations to be made by witness interpreters and juror's oaths or affirmation shall be made by the following persons namely: a all witnesses that is to say all person who may lawfully be examined or give or be required to give evidence by or before any court or person having by law or consent of party authority to examine such person or to receive evidence. Proviso- An oath can not be administer to a child who is below 12 Years.
Section Power to summon material witness or examine person present In criminal cases the fate of the proceeding cannot always be left entirely in the hands of the parties. The court has also a duty to see that essential questions are not so far as reasonably possible left answered. It was held in a famous case that section confers very wide power on court for summoning witnesses.
The power under section is wholly discretionary but it should be exercised judicially the wider the power is greater the necessity for application of judicial mind. It was further held is commonly known as "Best bakery case" that fair trial warrants that a presiding judge must not be a spectator and a mere recording machine.
But he should play active role in evidence collecting process and elicit all relevant materials necessary for reaching the correct conclusion to find the truth In Tahsildar Singh V. State of U. P The Supreme Court examined in detail the purpose and object of this provision.
According to the Apex Court, the legislative intent behind this provision was to protect the accused person from police officers who would be in a position to influence the makers of such statements, and from third persons who would be inclined to make false statements before the police.
This is a highly laudable objective and is truly reflective of the attempt to ensure fairness in the process of criminal investigation. At the same time, it was imperative that there be some mechanism for recording Confessions and other statements in a fair and foolproof manner, especially in situations where the police thought the witnesses were unlikely to stick to the statements made by them under Section It was precisely this objective that resulted in vesting of authority in the Judicial Magistrate to record statements by witnesses as well as confessions by accused persons, under Section of the Code.
In State of U. Singhara Singh The Supreme Court also observed that Section would be rendered wholly nugatory if the procedure prescribed by that provision was not held to be mandatory. Section strikes a fine balance between the interests of the investigating agency and the accused person, and this is the primary reason for judicial insistence on strict compliance with the prescribed procedure.
As rightly observed by a Full Bench of the Madras High court. Any statement made before a Magistrate and duly recorded under Section is considered a public document under Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, Written documents containing such statements are also presumed to be genuine as well as duly recorded, under Section 80 of this Act. Section can be used as evidence of the verbal statement made by the witness before the Magistrate.
In this context, two contradictory views arise; Yes, it'll discourage those who look at justice as purchasable Commodity.
Even the witness Protection Programme is a simplistic solution:- Simplistic solutions and knee jerk reactions have neither worked in the past nor are they going to make a difference in the further whether it was the menace of snuggling 60s, food adulteration in 70s, corruption in 80s or terrorism in 90s, simplistic solutions kike in traducing prescriptions against the accused reversal of proof admissibility of confessions before police etc Failed to achieve the desired results always.
That why even the witness protection programmer is a simplified solution to the problems of criminal courts. Instead there should be an in depth study itself. It needs more than a mere legislation. WPP can never work in India since we don't have a culture of confidentiality. The problem lies in the criminal justice system which is expected with bullock crate facilities.
A look at the working of our criminal courts gives an idea of what is wrong with system. For example:. The declaration recognized four types of rights and entitlements of victims of crime. The United Kingdom enacted the criminal Injuries compensation Act, in In in a report on "criminal Justice" The way a Head" the home Department found that many victims felt that the rights of accused of a crime take precedence over theirs in criminal proceedings.
Some other rights granted to accused consist of: 1. Yes it will discourage those who look at justice as purchasable commodity. The extra ordinary rational outrage when the killers of Jessica lal walked away free has created the moral universe for introducing several long delayed reforms in India's crumbling and discredited criminal justice system.
The glittering party where her life was taken was attended by many rich and powerful people. Yet most of them failed to give or stand by their eye-witness statements leading ultimately to shameful acquittal of the accused.
The people who turned hostile in this case should be punished for their indefensible complicity in helping the guilty escape the law. In Gujrat the major reasons for large no. Therefore, punishment of people who charge their statement must require investigation that establishes that they did so because they were bribed. It should never be used to victimize the victim further. Punishing hostile witnesses should indeed be part of a much larger package of reform including witness protection much stronger police and judicial accountability.
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 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. Ensuring anonymity, and 4. Making arrangements to ensure their protection. Witnesses in court should be treated like guests of honor; 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. Constitution of a National Security Commission at national level and a State security commissions at state level. As the Supreme Court 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 helpless situation.
For their reasons and others, a person abhors becoming a witness". Best Bakery case is about a 19 year old girl who was sitting with her family in Best Bakery on one following the Gujarat riots. Best Bakery was a small Bread Making unit in 'Vadodara' slum. As per reports following the riots a mob shouting anti Muslim slogans gathered around the bakery on the same that time there were 25, people inside the bakery, who had no option but to run the terrace.
For those who would not make it to the terrace locket themselves in a room on the first floor what happened after that because the Best Bakery case leaving Zahira Shekh as the prime witness of the incident. An incident where 14 people burnt from Zahira's family. Zahira Sheikh on being brought to the court many a times retracted from her statements. Every time she changed her stand, she brought the case under cloud. Best Bakery trial is the glaring example of miscarriage of justice where the witnesses turned hostile due to external pressures by the rich and powerful accused.
Before the newly instituted court, the witness refused to identify any of the accused and was contrary to her previous statement before the police and the National Human Rights Commission. The court recorded a verdict that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges. Later Ms. Sheikh asserted that she had lied to the court under threat and fear for her life. Result: Sessions court acquitted 7 and convicted 10 people out of 21 accused.
Nanda had allegedly run over sleeping pavement dwellers in Delhi. Three people died on the spot and other received serious injuries. As the trial progressed, a large number of witness turned hostile- Monoj Mallick, the lone survivor of hit—n- run, told the court that he was hit by a truck. In fact, none of the witness supported the prosecution. In the end, Sidharth and Manik were granted bail. Late Prof. Sabharwal was a professor in Government College, Ujjain, M. P was brutally beaten up by certain persons, for taking a rigid stand in the college union elections.
Though the assaults were made in the presence of several police officials, media persons and members of public, attempt has been made to project as if his death was as a result of an accident. Initially, First Information Report was lodged and after investigation charge sheet was filed and charges have been framed against several persons.
The Supreme Court came heavily upon the state Government of M. During examination of several witnesses who were stated to be eye-witnesses, such witnesses including three police witnesses who resiled from the statements made during investigation. After extensive hearings with nearly a hundred witnesses, a Delhi trial court quitted the accused and his friends.
After an immense uproar, hundreds of thousands e-mailed and sms their outraged on petitions forwarded by media channels and newspapers to the president and other seeking remedies for the alleged miscarriage of justice. On 25 the Delhi High Court admitted an appeal by the police against the Jessica Lall murder acquittals, issuing non-bailable warrants against prime accused Manu Sharma and eight others and restraining them from leaving the country.
This was not a re-trial, but an appeal based on evidence already marshaled in the lower court. The acquittal of all the accused in the Jassica lall Murder case is an extra ordinary miscarriage of justice. If the police cannot nail a killer who shot his victim at point-blank range before several eye witness there is a serious feed for a rethink on our investigative and judicial apparatus.
The case against the crime accused Manu Sharma son of a Haryana Minister for shooting Jessica lal or April 29, collapsed on three grounds. First, three key witnesses turned hostile: 2nd while the prosecution maintained that two bullets found at the murder site were fired from a single weapon the state's forensic agency said the bullets were fired from different weapons; and finally murder weapon was ever recovered: witness retracting their statement are nothing unusual, especially in cases enduring the high and mighty.
The prime accused in Jessica's had enough political connections to browbeat any witness. The verdict in Jassica lal's case took nearly 7 years. The long gap means there is that much more scope to mess around with evidence and to exert pressure on eye witnesses. The judge decides whether to treat you as a hostile witness, basing their decision largely on your behaviour and credibility. The judge has to distinguish between a hostile witness and an unfavourable witness.
Just because you give unhelpful or unfavourable evidence does not mean the person calling you can attack your credibility. If you are cross-examined on your previous statement, that statement is only used as evidence of your inconsistency, it is not proof of the facts contained in the statement. The following procedure is followed if a witness is accused of contradicting their previous statement while in the witness box:. If you have a question about this topic you can contact the Citizens Information Phone Service on 07 Monday to Friday, 9am to 8pm.
You can also contact your local Citizens Information Centre or Request a call back from an information officer. Introduction A hostile witness is a witness who appears unwilling to tell the truth after being sworn in to give evidence in court. Rules If the evidence you give under oath changes significantly from what you said earlier in a pre-trial statement, the solicitor or barrister who called you to be a witness, can ask the judge to decide if you are hostile.
What happens if I am ruled as a hostile witness? Further information Procedure followed when a witness is declared hostile The following procedure is followed if a witness is accused of contradicting their previous statement while in the witness box: The solicitor or barrister applies to the judge to have the witness declared a hostile witness.
B Hons. This is an exhaustive article which deals with laws relating to hostile witnesses and suggested reforms in the same. Jessica Lal, Priyadarshini Mattoo, Best Bakery, Phoolan Devi are all victims of grave offences who were denied a speedy and fair trial due to witnesses turning hostile. These cases are prima facie examples of the judiciary becoming a sock puppet of the rich in India and the world over.
While most of the time, carefully built cases suffer at the hands of unclear and vague laws of evidence collection, in others, the lack of protection for the witnesses is abused by the accused to benefit from it. Globally, laws related to hostile witnesses may be progressive but their implementation is questionable.
In the celebrated case of Himanshu Singh Sabharwal v. This article lays down present substantive and procedural laws in the country and globally, while also discussing the lapses in such law and how they lead to witnesses becoming hostile.
Hostile witnesses can destroy carefully constructed cases and cause unjust acquittals of the guilty, and they can make a mockery of an investigative process. These witnesses are brought in by a party to provide a deposition in its favour and help the prosecution build its case, instead, the witness turns in court and gives a version that is different and contradictory to its earlier statements.
The term has been derived from Common Law, where it was introduced to provide adequate safeguards against witnesses that, by providing hostile evidence, ruin the cause of the party calling them.
This was viewed as not only to be hurtful to the parties but also to the courts whose function is to meet the ends of justice. The safeguards envisaged in Common Law consisted of the party, who had called such witnesses for their case, illuminating the contradiction created by the witness from previous testimonies or impeaching their credit.
However, to initiate this safeguard, it was important for the court to declare the witness as hostile. In this case , an officer was charged for bribery, as the inspector of the Anti-corruption Department laid a trap for him. After the transfer of money to the accused the department immediately raided the office of the accused. The prosecution evidence by the court as they were interested parties in the trap also, the two other independent witnesses from the side of prosecution made contradictory statements.
The question regarding the credibility of the witnesses was aroused. The court, in this case, held that a hostile witness is the one who is not desirous of telling the truth at the instance of the party who has called him whereas an unfavourable witness is one who instead of proving a particular fact, in turn, fails to prove such fact or proves an opposite fact. In this case the court held that, If the witness is speaking the truth and his testimony goes against the interest of the party who has called him then he cannot be necessarily called hostile.
Hence, an unfavourable witness cannot be declared as a hostile witness. In this case the court held that the answers and the attitude of the witness are the major factors from which the hostility of the witness can be construed. Therefore, a witness is often deciphered as hostile when he shows hostility in his attitude towards the party who has called him or when he tries to conceal the truth by deliberately making statements which are contrary to what he stated earlier or is expected to prove.
When a prosecution witness turns hostile by stating something which tends to be destructive of the prosecution case, then the prosecution is entitled to request the Court to treat such witness as hostile.
The Case of Sampath Kumar v. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri , It was held that witnesses can be classified under three categories:. When the witness is wholly reliable, the court has no difficulty in delivering the judgement. It can either convict or acquit the accused on the deposition of a witness. Also, in the second category, there is no difficulty in arriving at an appropriate conclusion as there exists no question as to placing any reliance upon the deposition of a wholly unreliable witness.
It is the third case where the courts face problems in delivering the judgement. To elaborate further, witnesses can be classified under the following categories:. The domestic law has contrasting provisions with respect to Common Law. Section of t he Indian Evidence Act only permits the asking of such questions as may be asked in cross-examination. Such questions will include:.
The section allows for cross-examination to highlight contradictions by relying on previously written testimonies as long as the attention of the Court is brought to it. However, on closer scrutiny, the following observations are made:. From the above points, it is clear that while the common law aims to make certain distinctions between hostile and adverse witnesses for cross-examination, India follows no such guidelines.
The law simply exists to unearth hidden facts for the sole purpose of leading the Court to the truth. Section states that a witness will not be excused from any questions, the answer to which might criminalize him or impose a penalty or forfeiture on any question which is relevant to the case. No such answer by the witness shall lead to arrest or be proved against him in any criminal trial. However, the witness may be prosecuted by giving false evidence as part of his statements.
Therefore, this section deals with the compellability of hostile witnesses to provide answers to all questions. In , in the case of Shafi Mohammad vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh , the Supreme Court decided on foregoing the requirement of certificate if the party is not in possession of the device that had produced such evidence under Section 65B. Digital evidence has proven to be more conclusive and secure than documents and can leave little scope for witnesses turning hostile if their testimonies are recorded.
This judgment makes it easier for the investigating officer to provide credibility to significant evidence which was earlier not taken into account due to being procedurally uncertified. Section empowers a police officer to examine any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.
Once the statement is recorded, Section comes into play which states that neither statement given by a witness to an investigating officer and is reduced by the officer to writing for the purpose of record, shall be signed by such witness and nor shall any part of such record be used for any purpose.
As stated in Baliram Tikaram Marathe v Emperor , the purpose of such a provision is to protect the accused from overzealous and false witnesses. Thus, Section acts as a statute for the rights of the accused. This Section vests in the Judicial Magistrate and the Metropolitan Magistrate the power to record statements made by witnesses or accused persons. Krishnan , held that the objective of such a provision is to deter witnesses from turning on statements later under the temptations, fear, and influences.
Under Section 80 of IEA, written documents too are considered genuine and recorded. However, Section 91 of the IEA, excludes oral evidence under Section and requires that the statements be reduced to a writing form. Under this section, only written testimonies can be used as evidence in criminal trials and not the verbal statements.
Under this section , the power to summon material witnesses and the examination of such witnesses cannot be exclusively handled by the parties. In the Best Bakery case , it was held that the provision gives wide powers to Courts for summoning witnesses. Although it is discretionary, it shall be exercised judicially. It was also held that a fair and just trial cannot exist without the judge being more than a mere spectator.
He must play an active role in the process of reaching the truth. A witness must provide all information correctly otherwise they may be prosecuted and incriminated under Section of the IPC.
0コメント