Allahabad High Court Judgement

Allahabad High Court Judgement

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice at
JUDGEMENT HEADLINE : Bail Rejected From Trial Court Conviction Relying On Dependable Parts Of Witnesses Testimony. Directions Issued For Tackling Hostile Witnesses.
JUDGEMENT TITLE : Umesh Yadav Vs. State Of U.P. On 03/09/2013 By Allahabad High Court
CORAM : Hon'ble Amar Saran,J. And Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.


?Court No. - 46

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3054 Of 2013

Appellant :- Umesh Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel For Appellant :- Sudhir Kumar
Counsel For Respondent :- Govt. Advocate

Hon'ble Amar Saran,J.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
We Have Heard Learned Counsel For The Appellant And Sri Vimlendu Tripathi, Learned A.G.A For The State And Have Perused The Trial Court Judgment, Record And The Written Objections That Have Been Filed By The Learned A.G.A.
The Prayer For Bail In This Criminal Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Husband Of The Deceased, Who Has Been Convicted And Sentenced By The Additional Sessions Judge (Court No.1), Hathras By An Order Dated 29.5.2013. The Appellant Has Been Acquitted Under Sections, 304 B, 498A And � D.P. Act, By The Impugned Order, But Convicted Under Section 302 I.P.C And 201 I.P.C., Under Which An Alternative Charge Was Framed On 24.4.13.
The Prosecution Allegations As Mentioned In The FIR Lodged By Malkhan Singh, PW 1 Father Of The Deceased Reena On 3.12.2011 At P.S. Sikandararau Were That Reena Was Married To The Appellant Umesh Three Years Earlier. She Had Been Beaten And Thrown Out Of Her Sasural In Nagla Gulabi On 12.11.2011. After That She Was Brought To Nagla Babool By Her Uncle Rameshwar And The Informant, Where She Started Residing From 13.11.2011. On 28.11.2011, The Appellant Umesh And His Elder Brother Munesh Had Taken Away Reena On A Motorcycle After Promising That They Would Not Torture Her In The Future. However The Informant Learnt That Umesh And Munesh And His Family Members Had Murdered Reena And Had Thrown Her Corpse Into The Nadrai Canal. On This Information, The Informant, His Brothers And Others Went To The Sasural Of Reena In Nagla Gulabi Where They Learnt That Reena Had Been Murdered And That She Had Not Been Seen After 28.11.2011. When They Again Reached Reena's Sasural On 2.12.2011, They Found The House Empty And That The Appellant And His Family Members Had Absconded, With All Their Belongings. After That The Informant And Others Searched For The Corpse Of Reena, Which Was Found In The Nadrai Canal, Regarding Which An Information Was Given At P.S. Dolna. Dislike For Reena, Demand Of Dowry, And Illicit Relations Of Umesh, With His Brother Munesh's Wife Have Been Mentioned As The Motives For The Crime In The FIR.
13 Witnesses Of Fact Have Been Examined In This Case. However The Formal Witnesses Were Not Examined As The Defence Admitted The Genuineness Of The Prosecution Documents. The Fact Witnesses Included, The Informant Malkhan Singh, PW 1, Father Of Reena, Who Denied The Allegations Of Dowry Demand, Or Of Reena Being Driven Out Of Her Sasural After Being Beaten On 12.11.11, But He Admitted That She Had Come To Reside In Her Phupha PW 2 Swaraj's House On 13.11.11 At Sikandarpur (near Nagla Babool). He Denied That Umesh Or Munesh Had Taken Back Reena On Their Motorcycle From Nagla Babool Or Sikandarpur On 28.11.11. He Had Not Received Any Information That Umesh, Munesh And Their Family Members Had Murdered Reena And Cast Her Corpse In The Nadrai Canal In District Kanshiram Nagar. But He Learnt That Reena's Corpse Had Been Found In The Nadrai Canal And Had Even Gone To Reena's Sasural In This Connection On 28.11.11., But He Did Not See Reena There. He Admitted Lodging A Written Report Scribed By Rajpal Singh At P.S Sikandrau, On Which He Had Appended His Signature. However He Stated In His Cross Examination That He Had Lodged The Report At The Instance Of The Police And The Opponents Of Umesh Who Were Present At The Police Station When He Went To Lodge The Report.
PW2 Swaraj And His Wife, PW 3 Smt. Kamla, Reena's Aunt (bua), Admitted That Reena Had Been Married To Umesh 4 Years Prior To Their Testimony In Court, Which Was Recorded One Year After The Incident. No Dowry Was Demanded, And Reena Was Not Ill-treated In Her Sasural. One Year Earlier Malkhan And Rameshwar Had Left Reena At Their House In Sikandarpur, Where She Stayed For 15 Days. After That Reena Left By Herself For Her Maika In Katka. Umesh And Munesh Had Not Come On Their Motorcycle To Pick Up Reena On 28.11.11. And She Had Not Gone With Them.
PW 6 Ram Das, The Marriage Mediator, Denied The Allegations Of Dowry Demand And Claimed That Reena Had Committed Suicide Because She Could Not Conceive, Even After 3 Years Of Marriage.
PW 13, Jai Narain, (Malkhan, And Kamla's Brother And Reena's Uncle) Has Admitted That Before Her Death Reena Was Residing At Kamla's Place At Sikandarpur. Umesh Had Taken Away Reena From There. After 3 Days Of Her Departure Her Corpse Had Been Recovered From The Canal. He Denied The Allegations Of Dowry Demand.
It Was Contended By The Learned Counsel For The Appellant That All The Witnesses Of Fact, PWs 1 To 13, Except PW 4 Yogendra And PW 12 Dalvir Singh, The Witnesses Of Inquest, Have Turned Hostile And Have Denied The Allegations Of Dowry Demand, Or The Involvement Of The Appellant In This Crime, And There Was No Legal Evidence For Connecting The Appellant With This Offence.
Learned Counsel For The Appellant Further Submitted That The Appellant Had Disappeared From Her Maika After Which Her Body Was Found In The Nadrai Canal. The Deceased Had Actually Committed Suicide. The Trial Judge On Finding That There Was No Evidence Of Dowry Demand, Had Even Acquitted The Appellant Under The Charges Under Sections 304 B And 498 A IPC And � Of The Dowry Prohibition Act.
Learned AGA On The Other Hand Argued That The Trial Judge Had Rightly Acted In A Pro-active Manner For Eliciting The Truth As Mandated By The Apex Court In Zahira Habibullah Sheikh's Case, And Relied On The Dependable Part Of The Testimony Of The Prosecution Witnesses For Bringing Home The Charge Under Section 302 IPC Against The Appellant, And It Was Clear That The Witnesses Had Been Suborned And Won Over By The Accused. The Object Of Criminal Law Was Not Only That To Ensure That No Innocent Person Be Convicted, But It Was Also Social Defence And For Ensuring That The Guilty Must Not Escape Unpunished, And Efforts At Suborning Witnesses Be Nullified. In This Context The Trial Judge Had Relied Inter Alia On The Decisions Of The Apex Court In Bhagwan Singh V. The State Of Haryana, AIR 1976 SC 202; Rabindra Kumar Dey V. State Of Orissa AIR 1977 SC 170; Syad Akbar V. State Of Karnataka, AIR 1979 SC 1848; And Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari V. State Of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1991 SC 1853 For The Proposition That The Evidence Of Hostile Witnesses Cannot Be Treated As Effaced Or Washed Off The Record Altogether But The Same Can Be Accepted To The Extent That Their Version Is Found To Be Dependable On A Careful Scrutiny.
It Was Further Submitted By The Learned AGA, That The Trial Court Had Properly Delineated Dependable Circumstances For Showing The Involvement Of The Appellant In The Offence. Thus The Trial Court Had Noticed The Evidence Of PW-13 Jai Narain, The Brother Of Informant Malkhan, Who Although A Hostile Witness, Had Admitted Having Seen The Deceased Reena At The House Of His Sister Kamla Devi In Sikandarpur, From Where The Appellant Had Taken Her Away. After Three Days, Her Dead Body Was Found In The Canal. The Trial Judge Had Also Noted That PW-1 Informant Malkhan Singh Had At Least Admitted In His Examination-in-chief That After He Received Information That The Dead Body Of His Daughter Was Lying In Nadrai Canal, He Had Immediately Proceeded To Reena's Sasural At Nagla Gulabi On 28.11.2011 And Not To Reena's Bua's Place In Sikandarpur Or Nagla Babool, Where Reena Was Earlier Residing. From This, It Was Submitted That The Trial Judge Has Properly Inferred That Reena Had Been Taken Away By The Appellant To His Home Immediately Prior To The Incident. The Onus Under Section 106 Of The Evidence Act Then Lay On The Appellant To Explain How The Deceased Had Died After She Had Gone With Him, Which Burden Has Not Been Discharged By The Appellant. The Theory That The Deceased Had Committed Suicide Is Falsified By The Fact That The Post Mortem Report Indicates The Cause Of Death To Be Strangulation. There Was A Ligature Mark All Round The Neck Of The Deceased Just Below The Thyroid Cartilage And The Left Cornua Of The Hyoid Bone Was Also Fractured. The Death Was Therefore Clearly Homicidal And Not Suicidal. Also After Committing Suicide The Body Could Not Be Present In The Nadrai Canal. The Informant Malkhan Has Admitted That He Had Dictated The FIR To Rajpal And Then Lodged The Written Report At The Police Station Which He Had Signed. Though Malkhan Subsequently States In His Cross Examination That He Nominated The Appellant At The Instance Of The Police And Umesh's Opponents Who Were Present At The Police Station, But It Has Not Been Clarified As To Who Were These Opponents, And What Was The Enmity Which Would Have Caused These Opponents To Kill Reena And Then To Prevail Upon The Informant To Falsely Nominate The Appellant Umesh, Husband Of The Deceased For This Crime. According To The Learned AGA, The Denial Or False Explanation On Part Of The Appellant That The Deceased Had Committed Suicide, When Her Death Was Clearly Homicidal Was An Additional Circumstance For Showing The Complicity Of The Appellant In This Offence.
Having Given Our Thoughtful Consideration To The Submissions Of Learned Counsel For The Parties, Without Expressing Any Opinion On Merit, Looking To The Gravity Of The Allegations, The Successful Attempt By The Accused To Win Over Witnesses During Trial, The Reasons Mentioned By The Trial Court For Recording A Finding Of Guilt Against The Accused, We Find That No Good Ground Exists For Granting Bail To The Appellant, Who Was Not Even Allowed Bail During Trial. The Prayer For Bail Of The Appellant Is Therefore Rejected.
We Would However Like To Express Our Appreciation Of The Effort Made By The Trial Judge, Sri Subhash Chandra Kulshreshta, ADJ, Court No. 1, Hathras In Not Folding His Hands In Despair Once The Defence Had Succeeded In Suborning The Prosecution Witnesses, By Framing An Alternative Charge Under Section 302 On 24.4.13 And Then In Searching For Dependable Grounds In The Evidence For Establishing The Guilt Of The Appellant.
However We Are Of The Opinion That At The Outset When The Informant Malkhan, PW 1, The Father Of The Deceased Reena Himself Turned Hostile, The Trial Judge Could Have Issued Notice To PW 1 In Exercise Of His Powers Under Section 340 Cr.P.C., Asking Him To Explain Why He Should Not Make A Complaint Against Him Before The Competent Ist Class Magistrate For Trying Him For An Offence Under Section 182 IPC Or Other Appropriate Penal Section.
We May Mention That In A Case Tried By The ADJ/ FTC 2 Kaushambi, The Trial Judge Dr. Bal Mukund Had Done Precisely This When The Informant, Who Was The Brother Of The Deceased Had Turned Hostile. The Witness Had Then Appeared Before The Trial Court Him And Mentioned The Threats Held Out By The Accused Pintoo And Others. Thereupon The Trial Court After Notice Had Cancelled The Bail Of The Accused. The Result Was That The Said Witness As Well As Subsequent Witnesses Then Deposed Truthfully About The Occurrence. In An Order Passed By One Of Us (Amar Saran J) Sitting Singly In Its Order Dated 19.2.10, While Rejecting The Bail Preferred By The Applicant In Crl. M.B.A. No. 22094 Of 2009, Pintoo And Others V. State, (reported In MANU/UP/1995/2010: 2010(2) ACR 1185) Had In Paragraph 19 Lauded The Approach Of The Trial Judge, "who Passed The Impugned Order For His Timely And Pro-active Attempt At Dispensing Justice In The Wake Of The Determined Bid Of The Mischievous Accused To Subvert The Course Of Justice. With This Objective On The Very Date That The Witness Turned Hostile, The Court Issued Notice To The Witness As To Why He Should Not Be Punished Under Section 181, I.P.C. Encouraging The Witness To Come Out With The True Reason For His Hostility, And Thereafter By Issuing Notice To The Accused Asking Them To Explain Why Their Bail Be Not Cancelled, And Eventually By Cancelling Their Bail. This Appears To Have Emboldened The Subsequent Witness P.W. 2 Ramraj To Affirm His Earlier Version In The First Information Report, And To Have Prevented Him From Also Turning Hostile. The Judge Thereby Fulfilled The Mandate Of The Supreme Court In Letter And Spirit, By Not Functioning As A Passive Tape Recorder And By Affirmatively Searching For The Truth."
In The Said Decision This Court Had Also Directed (in Paragraph 20) That "the Copy Of The Order Also Be Sent To The Judicial Training And Research Institute And The Legal Services Authority For Communication To The Concerned Judicial Authorities Within A Month As A Guidance On How To Act In A Timely And Proactive Manner When Dealing With Situations Where Attempts Are Being Made To Brow Beat Witnesses And To Compel Them To Turn Hostile, As Hostility Of Witnesses By Threats Or Inducements Is Becoming The Bane Of Our Judicial System."
It Was Also Observed As Follows In Paragraphs 14 To 17 Of The Said Decision:
"14. It Is Significant That The Learned A.G.A. Also Relied Upon The Case Of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh Which Emphasizes That In Order To Keep The Stream Of Justice Pure And Unsullied The Court Must Not Function Like A Tape Recorder And It Must Pro-actively Search For The Truth. Wide Powers Have Been Given For This Purpose Also Under Section 311, Code Of Criminal Procedure Which Empowers The Court To Summon A Witness Or To Recall Any Person In Attendance And To Re-examine Him. Section 165 Of The Evidence Act, Also Confers Wide Powers On The Court To Question A Witness Or To Order The Production Of Any Person That The Judge Considers Necessary. It Was To Abide By The Spirit And Import Of The Decision Of The Apex Court In Zahira Sheikh's Case That The Learned Trial Judge Had Issued A Notice To Bhairo Prasad As To Why He Should Not Be Prosecuted, On The Same Date That The Witness Had Turned Hostile, Whereupon The Witness Submitted A Reply To The Notice On 8.7.2009 As To How On Account Of Threats To The Life Of His Son, He Had Been Forced To Turn Hostile. The Court Thereafter, Issued Notice To The Accused As To Why Their Bail Be Not Cancelled In Such Circumstances. The Result Of The Notice To The Accused Was That The Next Witness, P.W. 2 Raja Ram Was Prevented From Turning Hostile.
In This Connection It Has Been Sagely Observed In Paragraph 22 In "Zahira Habibullah Sheikh V. State Of Gujarat MANU/SC/1344/2006 : AIR 2006 SC 1367 : 2006 (2) ACR 1185(SC):
It Was Significantly Said That Law, To Be Just And Fair Has To Be Seen Devoid Of Flaw. It Has To Keep Promise To Justice And It Cannot Stay Petrified And Sit Nonchalantly. The Law Should Not Be Seen To Sit By Limply, While Those Who Defy It Go Free And Those Who Seek Its Protection Loose Hope (See Jennison V. Backer 1972 (1) All ER 1006. Increasingly, People Are Believing As Observed By Salmon Quoted By Diogenes Laertius In "Lives Of The Philosophers" Laws Are Like Spiders' Webs : If Some Light Or Powerless Thing Falls Into Them, It Is Caught, But A Bigger One Can Break Through And Get Away." Jonathan Swift, In His "Essay On The Faculties Of The Mind" Said In Similar Lines : "Laws Are Like Cobwebs, Which May Catch Small Flies, But Let Wasps And Hornets Break Through."
15. Because Of These Observations In Zahira Sheikh, That Courts Are Required Not To Sit Limply But To Pro-actively Search For Truth, I Find No Merit In Another Submission Of The Learned Counsel For The Applicant That As The Prosecution Had Not Given Any Application For Getting The Bail Cancelled Or For Declaring The Witness Hostile Nor Had The Witness Himself Given Any Statement On Oath That Some Pressure Had Been Made To Bear On Him, The Court Was Not Justified In Issuing A Notice To The Witness Why He Should Not Be Prosecuted Under Section 181, I.P.C. Or For Proceeding Against The Accused For Cancelling Their Bail. Such A Complaint Is Rarely Likely To Be Made By A Witness Whose Life Or The Life Of Whose Dear One Is Under Threat From The Accused, As Presently There Is No Effective System Of Witness Protection In Place. Learned A.G.A. Has Also Rightly Placed Reliance On The Case Of R. Rathinam V. State And Anr. AIR 2000 SC 1851 : 2000 (1) ACR 491(SC), That Not Only Are The State, The Complainant Or The Witness Entitled To Move An Application For Cancellation Of The Bail, But An Application For This Purpose Can Be Moved Under Section 439(2), Code Of Criminal Procedure By Any Third Party And Even Suo Motu By The Court, If It Is Satisfied That The Accused Persons Were Trying To Tamper With The Witnesses And The Court Can Also In Such Circumstances Pass An Order Cancelling The Bail Of The Accused.
16. The Importance Of The Court Not Shutting Its Eyes To Reality And Being Proactive In The Dispensation Of Justice Has Been Emphasized By Fali S. Nariman, In His Pithy Little Book, "India's Legal System, Can It Be Saved?" Nariman Contrasts The Architect's Impression Of Two Stone Images Carved Out On Towers Of The Bombay High Court. The Southern Tower Carries The Stone Image Of Mercy, The British (Victorian) Hand Maiden Of Justice Who Is Shown As Blind, "performing Her Task Without Fear Or Favour And Does Not Go By The Appearance Of The Parties Arraigned Before Her." He However Prefers The Indian Ideal Of Justice With Her Flowing Robes, A Sword In Her Right Hand And A Pair Of Scales In The Left, And The Blind Folds Removed Portrayed On The Northern Tower. "With Clear Eyes And A Clear Head, She Sees Things With Unbiased Vision, Looking Intently At The Ever-tilting Scales In Her Left Hand. The Tip Of The Sword Is Resting On The Ground Near Her Feet, So That After Considering The Evidence, She Can Wield The Sword Swiftly And Strike The Guilty Party : Being Clear-eyed She Cannot By Mistake Or Accident Hurt The Innocent One!"
17. In Fact In Mubarak Dawood Sheikh V. State Of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0048/2004 : 2004 (2) SCC 362; State Of U.P. V. Amarmani Tripathi MANU/SC/0677/2005 : 2005 (8) SCC 21 : 2005 (3) ACR 2995 (SC) And Kalyan Chandra Sarkar V. Rajesh Ranjan MANU/SC/0214/2004 : 2004 (7) SCC 528 : 2004 (3) ACR 2319(SC), It Was Observed That Even When There Is A Prima Facie Apprehension Of The Likelihood Of An Attempt To Derail The Course Of Justice By Tampering With The Witnesses, The Court Would Be Fully Justified In Cancelling The Bail. Here As We Have Seen The Eye-witness, Had Actually Turned Hostile, And It Was Not Only A Case Of An Apprehension That An Attempt Would Be Made To Tamper With The Witnesses."
The True Status Of Women Becomes Evident When We See How A Parent, If He Has Not Prevented The Daughter From Being Born After A Prenatal Sex Determination Test, How She Is Discriminated Against In Being Forced To Carry Out Domestic Chores From A Very Early Age, How She Has Enjoyed A Second Class Status In Provision Of Food And Education, Compared To The Boy Child. It Is Apparent In The Mockery And Ridicule Of The Raped Or Otherwise Abused And Humiliated Woman, Who Herself Is Viewed As An Abettor Of The Crime In Courts And Outside. It Is Visible In The Reluctance Of Witnesses To Give Evidence Even In Cases Of Rape And Murder Of Little Girls. More Poignantly The Mean Status Of A Girl Child Is Apparent (in Many Cases Like The Present), When A Parent Washes His Hand Of His Girl Child By Getting Rid Of Her By Paying Dowry, And How Readily After She Is Murdered In Her Marital Home, The Parents Or Other Witnesses After Stifling Their Conscience, Either Do Not Appear Or Fail To Support The Prosecution Case For A Price.
No Introduction Of New Laws Or Making Existing Laws More Stringent For Punishing Crimes Against Women Can Have Any Impact, Unless Witnesses Appear In Court And Give Evidence And Do Not Turn Hostile Or Give False Testimony In Courts. Hostile Witnesses Have Indeed Become A Cancer Which Can Ensure Erosion Of Public Confidence In Our Legal System.
The Poor Social Status Of The Woman Or Other Crime Victim, The Loss In Interest (apart From Failing Memory) Of The Witness In Giving Evidence And The Probability Of His Being Suborned By The Accused Due To Delays In The Investigations And Trials, The Political, Muscular And Economic Clout Enjoyed By Some Hardened Or Influential Offenders, The Readiness Of Witnesses To Be Silenced By Bribes, Both Because It Enriches Them And Also Protects Their Lives, In A System Which Offers No Real Witness Protection, The Absence Of Actions Against Accused By Way Of Cancellations Of Bails When Witnesses Are Intimidated Or Bribed, The Absence Of Social Sanctions Or Legal Prosecutions Of Witnesses For Turning Hostile Or For Perjury, Or For Non-appearance And Ready Orders Of Acquittals By Courts Once Witnesses Are Won Over By The Accused, Are All Contributory Factors For Witnesses Turning Hostile And Giving False Evidence Or For Their Non-appearance In Courts.
To Address These Problems We Therefore Issue The Following Directions:
1.Trial Courts Are Not To Act As Mere Tape Recorders, For Recording And Passively Accepting Whatever Evidence Is Offered Or Is Withheld From Courts By Perjuring Or Hostile Witnesses, But To Pro-actively Search For The Truth As Emphasized In Zahira Habibullah Sheikh And Other Cases.
2.Trial Courts To Take Recourse To Provisions Such As Section 311 Of The Code Of Criminal Procedure Which Empowers The Court To Summon A Witness Or To Recall Any Person In Attendance And To Re-examine Him, Or Section 165 Of The Evidence Act, Which Confers Wide Powers On The Court To Question A Witness Or To Order The Production Of Any Person That The Judge Considers Necessary, And Utilize Other Provisions For Compelling Attendance Of Non-appearing Witnesses.
3.The Investigations And Trials Be Conducted With Utmost Expedition, To Prevent Witnesses Turning Hostile By Being Suborned And Won Over By The Accused, Or Losing Interest In Ensuring Punishment For The Accused Due To Delays. We Also Reiterate The Directions Contained In Cr. Misc. Writ Petition No. 62 Of 2013, Anil Kumar Sharma V. State Of U.P. And Others For Avoiding Delays In Trials By Ensuring Availability Of The Accused Or Witnesses On The First And Subsequent Dates In The Trial And Other Court Proceedings, Making Copies Of Papers Mentioned U/s 207 Cr.P.C Available To The Accused On Their First Appearance/ Production Before The Court Once The Report U/s 173(2) Cr.P.C Is Ready, And That Compliance Of S. 309 Cr.P.C. For Day To Day Trials Be Strictly Observed.
4.The Judicial Training And Research Institute, Lucknow (JTRI) Should Conduct A Programme To Acquaint Trial Judges About Provisions, Case Law And Instances (such As The Present Trial Court's Decision, And Other Similar Cases) Where And How Convictions Be Secured Even When Witnesses Are Suborned And As To The Steps Needed For Counteracting Hostility In Witnesses.
5.The Trial Courts Must Initiate Action Under Section 340 Cr.P.C (or Under Section 344 Cr.P.C) Against The Hostile Informant Or Other Witness For False Prosecutions Under Section 182 IPC, Or For Giving False Evidence Under Section 193 IPC Or Other Applicable Provisions.
6.The Courts Could Also Take Steps For Cancelling The Bail Of The Accused Where Witnesses Are Being Suborned And Won Over By The Accused.
7.Preferably The Steps For Initiating Proceedings Under Section 340 Cr.P.C Or For Cancelling The Bail Of The Accused Be Taken On The Same Day Or As Soon As Possible After The Witness Becomes Hostile.
8.We Would Also Like To Be Informed By The JTRI And The U.P. State Legal Services Authority, (UPSLSA) As To What Steps Have Been Taken Or Are Proposed To Be Taken With Respect To Point 7 Above, Which Was Directed By The Order Dated 19.2.2010 In The Bail Application Of Pintoo Singh And Others, And Also What Steps They Now Propose To Take To Carry Out The Additional Directions In The Present Order.
9.We Would Like A Response From The Principal Secretary (Home), U.P., Director General Police, U.P. (DGP), And Director Of Prosecutions U.P., As To What Measures They Have Taken Or Propose To Take For Preventing Hostility Of Witnesses By Initiating A Scheme For Witness Protection And The Nature Of The Scheme, For Ensuring Speedy Completion Of Investigations, Getting The Statements Of Witnesses In Grave Cases Of Murders, Dowry Deaths, Rapes, Dacoities Etc. Recorded By The Concerned Magistrate Under Section 164 Cr.P.C Where Witnesses Are Likely To Turn Hostile, To Facilitate Prosecuting Witnesses For Perjury If They Change Their Stance In Court, Initiating Steps For Prosecuting The Informant And Other Witnesses Who Have Been Corruptly Won Over By The Accused, (if Possible On The Very Day After He Turns Hostile) Or For Cancellation Of Bails Of Accused Where Witnesses Start Turning Hostile, And For Putting Into Place An Effective Scheme At The District Level For Speedy Production Of Absconding Accused And For Ensuring Appearance Of Witnesses (as Spelt Out Above And In The Case Of Anil Kumar Sharma.)
10.We Would Like Data For One Year From All District Judges In U.P., Regarding The Number Of Cases Decided By Different Courts In Their Judgeships (both Convictions And Acquittals), The Number Of Cases Of Acquittals, The Number Of Cases Where Acquittals Were Recorded On Merit, The Number Of Cases Where Acquittals Were Recorded On Basis Of Hostility Of Witnesses, The Number Of Cases Where Acquittals Were Recorded Partly On Merit And Partly On The Ground Of Hostility Of The Witnesses, The Number Of Cases Where Convictions Were Recorded Even Though The Witnesses Turned Hostile, (the Orders Of This Category May Be Forwarded To This Court), The Number And Particulars Of Cases Where Proceedings Under Section 340 Or 344 Cr.P.C Were Initiated Against The Informant Or Other Witnesses After Witnesses Turned Hostile, The Number And Particulars Of Any Case In Which Notice U/s 340 Cr.P.C Was Issued To The Informant/witness Immediately After He Turned Hostile, As In Pintoo's Case Abovementioned, The Number Of Cases Where Bails Of Accused Were Cancelled Because Witnesses Were Turning Hostile. As Far As Possible The Said Information May Be Furnished In A Tabular Form. Any Other Feed Back Or Suggestions That The Sessions Judge Or His Judicial Officers May Offer For Dealing With The Problem Of Hostility Of Witnesses.
11.We Would Also Like The Hon'ble Chief Justice To Consider Constituting A Committee For Acquiring Data On The Nature And Extent Of The Problem Of Acquittals Being Recorded Because Of Hostile Witnesses, The Directions And Circulars That May Be Issued For The Guidance Of Trial Courts In This Matter, The Appropriateness Or Otherwise Of Granting Quota Benefits To Trial Judges When Judgements Of Acquittals Are Delivered On The Basis Of Witness Hostility, And Whether Additional Quota Can Be Given When The Court Initiates Action Under S. 340 Or 344 Cr.P.C Where Witnesses Turn Hostile, And For Other Related Issues.
List This Case For Further Orders On 22.10.2013. Meanwhile The Director JTRI, Member Secretary UPSLSA, DGP, U.P., Director Of Prosecutions U.P., Principal Secretary (Home), U.P., All District Judges Though Registry Allahabad, Registrar General, Allahabad High Court May Submit Their Compliance Reports/ Feedback On The Aforesaid Directions.
Copy Of The Order Be Forwarded/ Placed Before The Hon'ble Chief Justice, Registrar General, Allahabad High Court, Director JTRI, Member Secretary UPSLSA, Director, National Judicial Academy, Bhopal, DGP, U.P., Director Of Prosecutions U.P., Principal Secretary (Home), U.P., All District Judges Though Registry Allahabad, Government Advocate And AGA, Sri Vimlendu Tripathi Within Two Weeks.

Go to Navigation