'No Response By State On Enquiry Into Complaint Of Defence Witness Intimidation' : Supreme Court Stays Trial Against MP Congress MLA

The Supreme Court on Monday (February 10) stayed the trial in a cheating case against Congress Madhya Pradesh MLA Rajendra Bharti after taking note of his allegation that the defence witnesses are being pressurised.

A bench comprising Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order in a petition filed by Bharti seeking to transfer the trial to another State. During the hearing, the bench expressed dissatisfaction with the State's evasive replies on whether it enquired into allegations that witnesses were intimidated.

The Court also orally remarked that an advocate representing the Government must be an officer of the Court and should not act like a mouthpiece of the State.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the defence witnesses were taken to a hotel and were pressurised to give evidence against the petitioner. He referred to an affidavit filed by a witness regarding the pressure he had to face.

The State, however, flatly denied the allegation. This was not received well by the bench, which sought for a clear answer on whether the State took any action to enquire into the veracity of the allegations, instead of bluntly denying it.

"There are documents on record to show that defence witnesses were pressurised. What enquiry have you done?", Justice Oka asked Bharat Singh, Additional Advocate General of MP, who was appearing virtually. AAG simply reiterated the denial of the allegation.

Dissatisfied with the AAG's response, Justice Oka asked, "Should we record that the AAG is not answering our questions?"

AAG stated that many defence witnesses were refusing to appear and that the present affidavit was fabricated. "On what basis you are saying that the affidavit is fabricated? Has any senior police officer enquired? On what basis are you saying this?". The AAG said that the defence witness has not given any such statement before the trial court.

Justice Oka then told the AAG, "You are the State, it is your duty to ensure free and fair trial. We take pride that even Ajmal Kasab was given a fair trial in this country. When defence witness is giving a statement that he is pressurised, is it not your duty to enquire?"

When the AAG continued to deny the allegation, Justice Oka told him, "You are first an officer of the Court, not the mouthpiece of the State. We have to remind you this."

"From the way the State is defending this, we think we have to drawn an adverse inference. We will stay the trial and order enquiry by an independent body..Look at the way the AAG is defending. Threatening witnesses is also an offence. Has the State registered any FIR on that allegation?" Justice Oka stated. The AAG then requested for time of two days to respond to the matter by filing documents.

The bench, while adjourning the matter, ordered a stay of the trial. In the order, the bench made a specific observation that there was no response from the State to queries regarding enquiries into the intimidation of witnesses.

The Court observed in the order as follows :

"Prima facie it appears to us that there was enough material placed on the record of the trial court containing the allegation that more than one defence witness was tried to be intimidated. Obviously, the trial court should have taken action. Firstly. the question is whether the State made any attempt to enquire into the matter. When we made repeated queries to the AAG and the standing counsel for the State , they have no answer to the question. Considering this, we deem it appropriate to stay further proceedings of trial. Accordingly, further proceedings are stayed. While we say this, it is the duty of the State to ensure that a fair trial is conducted. Fair trial means full opportunity in accordance with law for the accused to defence himself."

Case no. – T.P.(Crl.) No. 1120/2024 Diary No. 58059/2024

Case Title – Rajendra Bharti v. State of Madhya Pradesh