2000 Supreme(SC) 603

2000(5) Supreme 111
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Punjab and Haryana High Court)
D.P. Wadhwa & Mrs. Ruma Pal, JJ.
Swaran Singh etc. -Appellants
versus
State of Punjab -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 721 of 1993
With
Criminal Appeal No. 720 of 1993
Decided on 26-4-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : U.R. Lalit, Ujagar Singh, Sr. Advocates, H.K. Puri, S.K. Puri, Ms. Naresh Bakshi, R.S. Suri, Devender Verma, Rajiv Dutta, Uday Kumar, Rajesh Srivastava, Ujjwal Banerjee, Ms. Enakshi Kulshreshtha, Kapil Sharma, Advocates.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302/34-Murders by gun shot-Motive enmity and rivalry-Eye witness evidence-Trial Court convicting two accused persons and acquitting two accused persons-High Court affirming conviction but altering sentence-Appeal to Supreme Court-Plea that evidence of witnesses on basis of which conviction was rendered not believed in respect of acquitted accused persons and hence conviction of appellant cannot be sustained-Not tenable-Evidence against accused persons in question conclusive-Defence that deceased in drunken mood fired indiscriminately not borne out by medical evidence-Fact that firing was at close range supported evidence of eye-witnesses and ran contrary to defence account of incident-Sites of wounds on deceased also bear out eyewitnesses testimony-Conviction order warranted no interference.

       (ii) Criminal trial-Evidence of witnesses-Plight of witnesses-Enter adjournments till a witness is wonover or is tired-Non-payment of proper diet money-Harassment by subordinate staffs-Supreme Court s concern over criminal justice-High Courts have to be vigilant in this matter.

       Per D.P. Wadhwa, J.

       A criminal case is built on the edifice of evidence, evidence that is admissible in law. For that witnesses are required whether it is direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. Here are the witnesses who are a harassed lot. A witness in a criminal trial may come from a far-off place to find the case adjourned. He has to come to the court many times and at what cost to his own self and his family is not difficult to fathom. It has become more or less a fashion to have a criminal case adjourned again and again till the witness tires and he gives up. It is the game of unscrupulous lawyers to get adjournments for one excuse or the other till a witness is won over or is tired. Not only that a witness is threatened; he is abducted: he is maimed; he is done away with; or even bribed. There is no protection for him. In adjourning the matter without any valid cause a court unwittingly becomes party to miscarriage of justice. A witness is then not treated with respect in the court. He is pushed out from the crowded courtroom by the peon. He waits for the whole day and then he finds that the matter adjourned. He has no place to sit and no place even to have a glass of water. And when he does appear in Court, he is subjected to unchecked and prolonged examination and cross-examination and finds himself in a hapless situation. For all these reasons and others a person abhors becoming a witness. It is she administration of justice that suffers. Then appropriate diet money for a witness is a far cry. Here again the process of harassment starts and he decides not to get the diet money at all. High Courts have to be vigilant in these matters. Proper diet money must be paid immediately to the witness (not only when he is examined but for every adjourned hearing) and even sent to him and he should not be left to be harassed by the subordinate staff. If the criminal justice system is to be put on a proper pedestal, the system cannot be left in the hands of unscrupulous lawyers and the sluggish State machinery. Each trial should be properly monitored. Time has come that all the courts, district courts, subordinate courts are linked to the High Court with a computer and a proper check Is made on the adjournments and recording of evidence. The Bar Council of India and the State Bar Councils must play their part and lend their support to put the criminal system back on its trail. Perjury has also become a way of life in the law courts. A trial judge knows that the witness is telling a lie and is going back on his previous statement, yet he does not wish to punish him or even file a complaint against him. He is required to sign the complaint himself which deters him from filing the complaint. Perhaps law needs amendment to clause (b) of Section 340(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in this respect as the High Court can direct any officer to file a complaint. To get rid of the evil of perjury, the court should resort to the use of the provisions of law as contained in Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (Para 36)