Landmark Judgments On Custodial Protection Of Vulnerable Witnesses
1. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
Facts:
This case arose from custodial deaths and police abuses, raising concerns about the treatment of accused and witnesses in custody.
Issue:
The need for guidelines to protect persons (including vulnerable witnesses) in police custody to prevent torture, abuse, and intimidation.
Judicial Interpretation:
The Supreme Court laid down detailed D.K. Basu Guidelines, including:
Police must inform a relative or friend of the person taken into custody.
Medical examination of the detainee at the time of arrest and every 48 hours.
Proper police diary entries and record of arrest.
Protection against torture or coercion.
Though focused on accused persons, these safeguards apply broadly to vulnerable witnesses in custody, ensuring their protection and dignity.
Significance:
The judgment became the cornerstone for custodial safeguards and influenced protection measures for vulnerable witnesses.
2. State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (1996)
Facts:
The case involved the rape and murder of a minor girl, whose testimony was critical but involved trauma and fear.
Issue:
Whether courts can rely on the evidence of a traumatized child witness and how to protect such vulnerable witnesses during trial.
Judicial Interpretation:
The Supreme Court ruled that the evidence of a child witness is admissible even if it appears inconsistent or shaky, but that the child’s dignity and safety must be preserved during testimony.
The Court endorsed special measures like:
Recording testimony through video conferencing.
Examination in a child-friendly environment.
Avoiding direct confrontation with the accused.
Significance:
This judgment laid the foundation for special custodial protection and sensitive handling of vulnerable witnesses in sexual offence cases.
3. Alok Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2009)
Facts:
A case where the victim-witness faced intimidation and threats during the investigation and trial.
Issue:
The protection of witnesses from intimidation and ensuring safe testimony.
Judicial Interpretation:
The Supreme Court emphasized the state’s duty to protect witnesses, especially vulnerable ones, from threats or harm. It directed the use of:
Witness protection programs.
Providing police protection where necessary.
Keeping witness identity confidential if required.
Significance:
This judgment stressed proactive custodial and procedural protection to prevent witness tampering.
4. Lillu @ Raj v. State of Haryana (2014)
Facts:
The victim-witness in a sexual assault case faced physical and psychological intimidation.
Issue:
How courts can safeguard vulnerable witnesses to ensure their testimony is reliable and free from fear.
Judicial Interpretation:
The Supreme Court directed the courts and police to:
Conduct testimony in the presence of a psychologist or social worker.
Use video recording of statements to minimize trauma.
Provide safe shelter and legal aid to witnesses.
Significance:
This case reinforced the need for holistic protection including physical, psychological, and legal safeguards.
5. Sheela Barse v. Union of India (1986)
Facts:
This PIL highlighted the abuse of women in custody and the vulnerability of women witnesses and accused.
Issue:
The rights and protection of women in custody and vulnerable witnesses.
Judicial Interpretation:
The Supreme Court laid down guidelines to ensure:
Separate police stations or cells for women.
Female police officers to handle women witnesses and accused.
Protection against custodial violence or harassment.
Significance:
This ruling was pivotal for gender-sensitive custodial protection of vulnerable witnesses.
Summary of Key Principles:
| Principle | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Custodial Safeguards | Protection against torture, coercion, and intimidation during custody. |
| Sensitive Examination | Using child-friendly or trauma-informed procedures during testimony. |
| Witness Protection | Physical security, anonymity, and legal support for vulnerable witnesses. |
| Use of Technology | Video recording and remote testimony to reduce trauma. |
| Gender-Sensitive Measures | Separate handling and protection of women witnesses and accused. |
RELATED Blog
0 comments