NEW DELHI: In the absence of a concrete system to safeguard witnesses, the Indian criminal justice system often faces an acute problem of witnesses turning hostile in trials.
With Friday’s verdict acquitting all the accused in the Sohrabuddin encounter case citing a lack of evidence and 92 witnesses turning hostile, the demand of punishing those who retract from their statements has gained steam again.
India now has a comprehensive protection programme for protecting witnesses. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court had approved the Central government’s draft witness protection scheme and asked all states to implement it till the Parliament comes out with legislation on the issue.
Indian law is not toothless when it comes to punishing hostile witnesses. Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) prescribes punishment for a person who intentionally gives false evidence. It states that any person doing so would be liable for punishment with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend up to seven years, and shall also be liable to pay a fine.
However, this is only applicable in cases where the witness has made a sworn affidavit before the trial court under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
Unfortunately, even though it is possible to charge a hostile witness with perjury, it happens very rarely. According to legal experts, so far, nobody has been convicted for perjury in Delhi courts.
In both the Best Bakery case and the Jessica Lal murder case, the HC and SC had directed that the hostile witnesses be prosecuted.
Zahira Sheikh, the main witness in the Best Bakery case, was convicted of giving false evidence in 2006 and sentenced to three years of imprisonment. She was also sentenced to a year’s imprisonment and fine by the apex court for contempt of court.
However, Shayan Munshi, who was charged for giving false evidence in the Jessica Lal murder, is yet to face trial.