NEW DELHI, November 16: Unless witnesses are protected, the increase in unmerited acquittals in criminal cases cannot be checked, the Supreme Court has pointed out.
“It is unfortunate that this [witness protection] important issue has not received necessary attention, and the time has come for the state to bestow serious attention on it,” said a Bench of Justices Ms. Ranjana Desai and Madan B. Lokur.
Writing the judgment, Justice Ranjana Desai said: “This appeal [in the instant case], again like many other appeals, presents before us the plight of a woman who has been burnt to death by her husband. Sadly, her parents turned hostile in court. This raises the serious question of witness protection… which is not addressed as yet.”
Citing an earlier judgment, the Bench said: “The state has a definite role to play in protecting witnesses,… at least in sensitive cases involving those in power, who have political patronage and could wield muscle and money power, to avert the trial getting tainted and derailed and the truth becoming a casualty.”
As a protector of its citizens, the state had to ensure that during a trial, the witness presented the truth without fear of being haunted by those against whom he deposed, the Bench said.
In the instant case, Anjappa was acquitted by a trial court in Karnataka of the charge of burning his wife Gowramma to death after dousing her with kerosene. On appeal, the Karnataka High Court awarded him six-year imprisonment.
Dismissing Anjappa’s appeal against this judgment, the Supreme Court said: “It is well settled that an order of acquittal is not to be set aside lightly.” However, it would “have to be disturbed if it is perverse.”
There was no doubt that Gowramma’s parents “were either won over by the appellant or pressurised” into supporting him. “Their evidence is a tissue of lies. In any case, even if it is obliterated and kept out of consideration, there is sufficient other evidence on record to establish the appellant’s guilt,” the Bench said.
Anjappa’s “bail bonds stand cancelled. He shall surrender before the court concerned to serve out the remaining sentence.”
