Court's Duty To Ensure Witnesses Are Not Under Threat: Supreme Court Cancels Accused's Bail After Witnesses Turn Hostile, Orders Fresh Examination

The Supreme Court has cancelled the bail granted to a man accused of conspiring to murder his wife after she refused consent for mutual divorce, upon noticing the "sudden somersault" taken by vital witnesses like the deceased's family members and the accused's history of using influence of police and goons.

The Supreme Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and Section 311 of CrPC to order a fresh examination of witnesses.

The Court observed- “...it pricks the conscience of this Court. Our attention has been drawn to the fact that there was a gap of around 20 days between the examination-­in-­chief and the cross-examination of the key witnesses, who are none else than the Appellant (PW­1), her daughter­Vidhya (sister of the Deceased, PW­4), and Muniraju (father of the Deceased, PW­5). They all have turned hostile and retracted their earlier statements...It cannot be a mere coincidence.”

The Court also opined that while it may be reluctant to interfere in a bail order, even if it holds a different view, it will not hesitate to withdraw bail if there is evidence of misuse.

It observed, “The Courts are under an onerous duty to ensure that the criminal justice system is vibrant and effective; perpetrators of the crime do not go unpunished; the witnesses are not under any threat or influence to prevent them from deposing truthfully and the victims of the crime get their voices heard at every stage of the proceedings.”

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta was hearing an appeal against the Karnataka High Court judgment which had granted bail to the respondent where he was booked for offenses under sections Sections 109,120B, 201, 302, 450, 454 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code

In the present case, Vinutha M.(deceased) and the respondent got married in 2006 and they had a son. The allegations suggest that the husband was involved in an extra-marital affair. Shortly thereafter, she was being harassed and forced to sign divorce papers.

Over the years, she filed multiple criminal complaints against Respondent and his family alleging assault and threats including an attempt to kill her. She also alleged that her husband had sent some rowdies to kill her who were caught by the police with axes and chilli powder.

Due to continued threats and attacks on her life, the victim sought police protection through the High Court. Her efforts resulted in an order, issued on 8th August 2019, directing the authorities to take necessary action. However, despite her pleas and complaints, she claimed that the police did not respond.

Notably, in her complaints, she explicitly accused her husband of arranging a contract killing by paying 15 lakhs. She alleged inaction on the part of local police, causing fear for her life.

Tragically, she was found dead on 21st December 2019, in her apartment. Although the initial FIR did not include charges under Section 302 of IPC, a subsequent complaint from the victim's mother led to the registration of a new FIR.

The police submitted the final report on 01.03.2020 against 4 persons, including the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 120B, 201, 302, 450, and 454 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The respondent was eventually arrested and applied for bail.

The High Court granted him bail, noting that he had only been charged with offenses under Sections 109 and 120B of IPC in the most recent FIR. The court cited the lack of evidence to prove a criminal conspiracy, leaving this matter to the trial stage.

As the case continued to unfold, some disturbing events came to light including delay in trial and examination of witnesses. The Court noted that notice in this SLP was issued in 2021 but it could only be taken up in 2023.

Most significantly, it noted that the key witnesses had turned hostile.

The Court noted that it was the appellant, who had been actively pursuing the appeal for the cancellation of bail given to the respondent by explicitly naming him as the primary conspirator in her daughter's murder. The Court found her abrupt change of testimony to be astonishing.

The Court observed “Her sudden somersault, therefore, cannot be easily detached from the chain of allegations made against Respondent in the past, of influencing the police, hiring goons, repeatedly assaulting the Deceased, and various attempts to take away her life. All of it suggests that the respondent has the potential to influence the investigation or the witnesses who were slated to depose against him. ”

The Supreme Court, recognizing the delicate balance between the fundamental right to liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution and the societal commitment to the rule of law, has a limited scope of interference in cases involving the cancellation of bail.

SC revokes bail after accused found influencing witnesses: Reiterates parameters for cancellation of bail

The Court redefined the parameters that constitute "cogent and overwhelming circumstances for cancellation of bail as held in Dolat Ram v. State of Haryana (1995) 1 SCC 349-

• Evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abusing or attempt to abuse the concession of bail granted
• Possibility of the accused to abscond
• Development of supervening circumstances impeding upon the principles of fair trial;
• The link between the gravity of the offense, the conduct of the accused, and the societal impact on the Court's interference.

The Court further discussed the impact of supervening circumstances arising post the grant of bail, including interference in the administration of justice and the abuse of the bail concession. Such circumstances are deemed detrimental to a fair trial and can justify the cancellation of bail, as articulated in Vipan Kumar Dhir v. State of Punjab (2021) 15 SCC 518

The Court applied these parameters to the case and concluded “that there is a prima facie proximity between the grant of bail to the respondent and an emboldening opportunity for him to win over the witnesses. Therefore, he does not deserve to enjoy the concession of bail at least until all the crucial witnesses are examined.”

Threat and intimidation cause for concern- SC invokes Art 142 and Section 311 CrPC to recall witnesses for a fair trial

The Court highlighted the vital role of witnesses in the justice system. However, when witnesses retract their statements for various reasons, it poses a severe threat to the criminal justice system's credibility and erodes public faith in its efficacy.

It observed “Their testimony determines the fate of a trial before the court of law, without which the court would be like a sailor in an ocean sans the radar and the compass. If a witness turns hostile for extenuating reasons and is reluctant to depose the unvarnished truth, it will cause irreversible damage to the administration of justice and the faith of the society at large in the efficacy and credibility of the criminal justice system will stand eroded and shattered.”

The Court cited numerous factors contributing to witness hostility, as detailed in the case of Ramesh v. State of Haryana (2017) 1 SCC 529., which includes threats, inducements, use of power, protracted trials, hassles during investigations, and the lack of legislative mechanisms to counteract witness hostility. Among these reasons, threats and intimidation have been a particularly concerning issue.

The court after noting what happened after the grant of bail, concluded that there is a need to recall witnesses for a fair, unbiased trial. The Court, empowered by Article 142 of the Constitution and Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, can call or recall witnesses, either at the request of the prosecution or suo moto, without being restricted by the stage of the inquiry, trial, or any other proceeding. This judicial authority is intended to ensure justice and discover the truth, with the understanding that it should not prejudice the rights of the accused.

In the present case, it was noticed that the family members of the deceased, the most crucial witnesses to corroborate the prosecution's allegations, altered their testimonies significantly.

The Court, therefore exercised its powers under Article 142 read with Section 311 of the CrPC to recall these witnesses and subject them to further cross-examination in a secure and intimidation-free environment. However, it observed that it is crucial to note that this power to recall witnesses under Section 311 CrPC must be used judiciously and witness hostility, by itself, is not sufficient to conclude that there's misuse of bail.

The Court finally directed the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru to provide security for the appellant and her family. It also asked the authorities to investigate threats to witnesses.

The Court also stressed the importance of maintaining an atmosphere free from intimidation to ensure that the testimony provided is voluntary, free, and untainted.

Case title: Munilakshmi v. Narendra Babu

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 924

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment