Supreme Court Orders Trial Courts to Act Suo Motu Against Untruthful Witnesses

In a significant move to uphold the sanctity of judicial proceedings, the Supreme Court has directed a trial court to proactively initiate action against witnesses found to be untruthful, underscoring the judiciary's increasing intolerance for perjury and witness hostility.

---

NEW DELHI – The Supreme Court of India has issued a stern directive aimed at curbing the pervasive issue of false testimony in criminal trials. Hearing a bail cancellation plea in a murder case plagued by allegations of witness intimidation, a bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice NV Anjaria instructed a Delhi trial court to take suo motu cognizance of any witness found to be making untruthful statements.

The order, passed in the case of Rahul Sharma v. State NCT of Delhi , not only highlights the apex court's concern over the subversion of justice but also serves as a potent reminder to the lower judiciary of their inherent powers and duty to prosecute perjury.

The bench explicitly stated, "It is made clear that if the trial Court finds that any witness has tried to take sides in their deposition without being truthful to the Court, the Court shall take suo motu cognizance of such conduct and initiate action in their individual capacity."

This directive sends a clear message: trial courts must not remain passive spectators to falsehoods but must actively safeguard the integrity of the evidentiary process.

Case Background: A Murder Trial Derailed by Hostile Witnesses

The matter before the Supreme Court originated from a Special Leave Petition filed by Rahul Sharma, the son of a murder victim, Vijendra Singh, who was killed in Shahdara, Delhi, in April 2019. The petitioner challenged an order by the Delhi High Court granting bail to one of the accused, Raj Sharma.

Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Vipin Sanghi argued that the trial was being systematically undermined. He contended that following the release of other co-accused on bail, a significant number of prosecution witnesses had turned hostile. Furthermore, he informed the Court that police complaints had been lodged against the accused, alleging direct intimidation of witnesses, a classic ground for the cancellation of bail.

The Delhi High Court, in granting bail to Raj Sharma, had considered factors such as his nearly six-year incarceration, the omission of his name in the victim's dying declaration, and the completion of the examination of prosecution witnesses. However, the petitioner argued that the very foundation of this examination was compromised by coercion and fear.

The Supreme Court's Intervention: Protecting Witnesses and Punishing Perjury

Acknowledging the gravity of the situation, the Supreme Court took a two-pronged approach.

First, addressing the immediate concern of witness safety, the bench noted the State's submission that only the examination of official witnesses—two doctors and Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) officers—remained. The Court directed the State to ensure these examinations are completed under police protection, shielding them from any potential influence or intimidation.

Second, and more significantly, the Court addressed the systemic problem of witnesses who had already deposed untruthfully. Instead of leaving the onus on the prosecution to file a separate application for perjury, the Supreme Court empowered and instructed the trial judge to act independently. This suo motu power is a critical tool in a system where parties may be hesitant or unable to pursue perjury proceedings, which are often complex and time-consuming.

By ordering the trial court to initiate action "in their individual capacity," the Supreme Court is emphasizing that the duty to unearth the truth is an institutional responsibility of the court itself.

Legal Implications: Reinvigorating the Fight Against Perjury

The Supreme Court's order carries profound implications for the criminal justice system, which has long been afflicted by the "twin sins" of witness hostility and perjury.

1. Empowerment of Trial Courts: The directive serves as a strong judicial precedent, encouraging trial judges across the country to be more assertive in dealing with witnesses who deliberately mislead the court. It reinforces the legal framework available under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which outlines the procedure for taking cognizance of perjury-related offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), such as giving false evidence (Section 191 IPC) and its punishment (Section 193 IPC).

2. Deterrent Effect: A proactive judicial stance on perjury is likely to have a significant deterrent effect. Witnesses, and those who might influence them, will be more cautious if they know that the presiding judge has been mandated by the apex court to independently scrutinize the veracity of their statements and initiate immediate action against falsehoods.

3. Upholding the Rule of Law: Truthful testimony is the bedrock of a fair trial. When witnesses lie with impunity, the entire edifice of justice is threatened. This order is a crucial step towards restoring faith in the judicial process by ensuring that the search for truth is not derailed by manipulated evidence. As observed in previous judgments, the "stream of justice has to be kept clean and pure and anyone soiling its purity must be dealt with sternly."

4. Shift in Onus: Traditionally, the burden of initiating perjury proceedings falls on the prosecution or the aggrieved party. The Supreme Court's emphasis on suo motu action shifts this responsibility, making the court an active guardian of its own proceedings. This is particularly vital in cases involving powerful accused who can intimidate not only witnesses but also the prosecution machinery.

The case has been posted for further consideration on December 11, where the Court will likely review the progress made by the trial court. The legal fraternity will be watching closely to see how this directive is implemented on the ground and whether it marks a turning point in the long-standing battle against perjured testimony in Indian courts.

Senior Advocate Vipin Sanghi, along with Advocates Ujwal Ghai and Arpit Sharma, instructed by AOR Kanhaiya Singhal, appeared for the petitioner. Senior Advocate Mukta Gupta, assisted by Advocates Nusrat Hossain, Nitya Gupta, Aditi Gupta, and Sarv Mangla, with AOR Niti Richhariya, represented the respondent-accused.