LI Network
Published on: October 23, 2023 at 13:03 IST
The Supreme Court has taken a decisive step by canceling the bail granted to an individual accused of conspiracy in the murder of his wife.
This decision followed the startling shift in testimony by vital witnesses, including the deceased’s family members, and the accused’s alleged use of influence over the police and criminal elements.
In exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the Supreme Court has ordered a fresh examination of the witnesses.
The Court’s concern was evident when it commented, “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 other than the Appellant (PW1), her daughter-Vidhya (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 Supreme Court, although typically cautious about interfering with bail orders, was unhesitant in revoking bail when presented with evidence of misuse.
The Court reiterated its duty to maintain a vibrant and effective criminal justice system and ensure the safety of witnesses who must testify truthfully without undue influence or threat.
The Supreme Court bench, composed of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Datta, reviewed an appeal against the Karnataka High Court’s bail judgment. The respondent was facing charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 109, 120B, 201, 302, 450, 454, and Section 34.
The case revolved around the marital discord between the deceased, Vinutha M., and the accused. Following her refusal for mutual divorce, the accused was allegedly involved in an extramarital affair, leading to harassment and pressure on her to sign divorce papers.
She had filed multiple complaints against him and his family for assault, threats, and an attempted murder. She had also accused her husband of arranging a contract killing, resulting in a persistent threat to her life.
Despite seeking police protection through the High Court, her pleas remained unanswered, further intensifying her fears. Tragically, she was found dead in her apartment in December 2019. Subsequent investigations led to charges against the respondent, his arrest, and eventually, bail granted by the High Court.
However, the case took a troubling turn with a delay in the trial process and a significant change in the testimonies of key witnesses. The Court observed the proximity between the grant of bail to the respondent and his potential influence over witnesses. Thus, it found it necessary to withdraw the bail until all crucial witnesses were examined.
Witnesses play a vital role in the justice system, and when they retract statements, it threatens the credibility of the criminal justice system.
The Court emphasized the need to counteract factors such as threats, inducements, use of power, protracted trials, and the lack of legislative mechanisms to address witness hostility.
The Court’s power to recall witnesses under Section 311 of the CrPC was exercised to ensure a fair and unbiased trial. Security measures were put in place to protect the appellant and her family, and threats to witnesses were to be investigated.
The Court stressed the importance of maintaining an intimidation-free environment for witnesses, emphasizing the need for voluntary and untainted testimony.
Case Title: Munilakshmi v. Narendra Babu
