JUDGMENT :

A. Hariprasad, J.

1. Primacy of witnesses in the adjudication of disputes, especially in the dispensation of criminal justice, is a well known fact recognised from time immemorial. Dharma Sasthras postulate that credible witnesses are the most important element from the point of view of oral evidence. A witness, according to Shukra Neethi, is a person other than the party, who has some knowledge of the transaction in dispute. Saintly jurist Manu said a person becomes a witness because he has either seen or heard something relevant. Kautilya @ Chanakya, ancient Indian teacher, philosopher, economist, jurist and royal advisor, in his Arthasasthra, a text dated to roughly between 2nd and 3rd century BCE, in Book III, concerning law, deals with the importance of witnesses in trials. Importance of taking oath by a witness is also dealt with therein.

2. Jeremy Bentham (1747-1832), an English philosopher, jurist and social reformer, said : "Witnesses are eyes and ears of justice". If the witnesses themselves are incapacitated or prevented from acting as eyes and ears of justice, trial becomes nugatory, worthless, trivial and meaningless. That may even sacrifice the sublime concept known as fair trial.

3. State of affairs existed during ancient times have drastically changed now. As long as the relevancy of oral evidence remains to be legally recognized in the realm of adjudication, especially in criminal cases, pre-eminence of the witnesses will continue. A genuine and truthful witness coming forward to depose in a criminal case should be regarded as an enlightened and responsible citizen, who has immense sense of public duty. He deserves to be respected and protected.

4. Variegated questions, relating to witness protection arising in these cases should be answered on the basis of well established sublime principles in this regard.

5. We shall deal with these appeals together notwithstanding they arise out of two proceedings in two Sessions Cases pending before the Special Court for trial of NIA Cases, Ernakulam (hereinafter referred to as "Special Court"). Crl. Appeal Nos. 837 of 2019 and 1107 of 2019 arise out of Crl.M.P. No. 86 of 2017 in S.C. No. 2/2017/NIA. Crl. Appeal Nos. 1206 of 2019 and 1207 of 2019 arise out of a common order passed by the Special Court on Crl.M.P. Nos. 91 of 2019 and 93 of 2019 in S.C. No. 2/2018/NIA. Crl. Appeal No. 837 of 2019 is preferred by original accused Nos. 39, 41, 44 and 45 in S.C. No. 2/2017/NIA. Crl. Appeal Nos. 1107 of 2019, 1206 of 2019 and 1207 of 2019 are preferred by the Union of India through the National Investigation Agency (in short, "NIA").

6. Facts relating to the appeals preferred from orders in S.C. No. 2/2017/NIA, shortly stated, are as follows: Accused 39, 41, 44 and 45 were not available for the first round of trial since they absconded at that time. Hence, case against them was split up and is pending trial at present. In an earlier trial, held against the then available accused, as many as 97, out of 300 witnesses examined, turned hostile allegedly under threat, fear and intimidation by the absconding accused. According to NIA, the accused at present facing trial as well as the accused who stood trial in the earlier case are members of Popular Front of India (PFI). In the further investigation conducted by NIA against the accused herein and others, 10 fresh witnesses, who had till then feared to depose, came forward to do so. NIA would state this was partly due to the fact that the agency has now arrested all the accused except one. The accused persons are involved in grave crimes registered under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, "IPC") and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (in short, "UA(P) Act"). According to NIA, the witnesses are under threat to lives and limbs and NIA acceded to the request of the witnesses to take necessary steps to protect their identity.

7. NIA filed Crl.M.P. No. 74 of 2017 before the Special Court requesting the sta