Hyderabad: Protracted trials, hostile witnesses and absence of protection to witnesses are posing problems for investigators and prosecutors in proving their cases during trial.
The recent verdict of the Supreme Court to punish cops and prosecutors failing to prove crimes before trial courts has been worrying them.
The Supreme Court, in the case of state of Gujarat versus Kishanbhai, has directed all state governments to take action against erring investigating or prosecuting officials.
The apex court took this view after being aggrieved by the lack of sufficient evidence leading to the acquittal of an accused who had allegedly raped and murdered a six-year-old girl and later severed her feet to steal her anklets.
The trial court had found him guilty and had awarded the death penalty. However, the High Court as well as the Apex Court found that the evidence let in by the prosecution was inadequate to find the accused guilty.
Most prosecutors and cops say that it will always be difficult on the part of the investigator to prove a case as long as the crucial witnesses in the case fail to stand firm from the initial reporting of the crime to the conclusion of the trial.
The role of witnesses at the trial is particularly important in adversarial systems where the prosecution must prove its case by leading evidence, often in the form of oral examination of witnesses, which can then be challenged by the defence at a public hearing.
Witnesses turning hostile are a common phenomenon in the country. The prosecution’s case can fall only on false statement of witnesses.
According to the police, a witness may turn hostile due to the influence of money or threat. The absence of protection to witnesses during and after trial is also a major factor in witnesses turning hostile.
The witness might be afraid of facing the wrath of the convicts who may be well connected. Witnesses are extremely vulnerable to intimidation in the form of threats by the accused.
Protracted trials are also one of the reasons in proving a case by the prosecution. This fact was admitted by the Supreme Court in Swaran Singh’s case.
The apex court had observed that it has become more or less a fashion to have a criminal case adjourned again and again till the witness tires and gives up. It is the game of unscrupulous lawyers to get adjournments for one excuse or the other till the witness is won over or is tired.
By adjourning the matter without any valid cause a Court unwittingly becomes party to miscarriage of justice. A person abhors becoming a witness. It is the administration of justice that suffers.
