The Supreme Court emphasized that courts should actively participate in trials rather than merely observing as spectators. “The court’s duty is to ascertain the truth, especially when the public prosecutor neglects their responsibilities,” the court emphasized.
NEW DELHI: On Friday (3rd May): The Supreme Court of India addressed the role of public prosecutors in conducting thorough cross-examinations of hostile witnesses. The Court, comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, expressed concern over the lack of effective cross-examination by public prosecutors during criminal appeals.
READ ALSO: Death of Assistant Public Prosecutor | Plea before Kerala High Court seeks CBI probe
The Supreme Court mentioned that the public prosecutors should conduct comprehensive cross-examinations of hostile witnesses, aiming to uncover the truth and demonstrate any deliberate deviation from statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The Court remarked,
“In our observation during criminal appeals, we have consistently noted a lack of effective and meaningful cross-examination by the public prosecutor when dealing with hostile witnesses.”
The Court clarified that cross-examination serves to challenge the witness’s evidence, sift facts, expose discrepancies, and elicit suppressed information in support of the cross-examining party’s case. Merely confronting the hostile witness with their earlier statement is insufficient. A skilled and experienced public prosecutor should engage in extensive cross-examination to establish that the witness actually witnessed the incident, as previously stated to the police.
“It is crucial to recognize that the purpose of cross-examination extends beyond simply presenting contradictions. Its aim is to challenge the accuracy, credibility, and overall value of the evidence presented by the witness, to scrutinize the facts already provided, to uncover any inconsistencies, and to reveal any suppressed information that may bolster the case of the party conducting the cross-examination,” the Court stated.
The Court elaborated that merely confronting the hostile witness with their police statement was inadequate for establishing contradictions on record.
Background
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a man who had murdered his wife in 1995. The sole eyewitness to the incident was the couple’s 5-year-old daughter, who turned hostile during the trial. Upon examining the evidence, the Court noted that the public prosecutor failed to effectively cross-examine the hostile witness, offering only a few suggestions without bringing proper contradictions on record. Furthermore, the few contradictions presented were not adequately substantiated through the testimony of the investigating officer.
“In the current case, not only were proper contradictions not established in the oral testimony of the hostile witnesses, but even the few that were identified were not substantiated through evidence provided by the Investigating Officer,” stated the Supreme Court.
While criticizing the omissions of the public prosecutor, the apex court also highlighted the failure of the trial judge to actively engage in the proceedings.
“The court’s duty is to ascertain the truth, especially when the public prosecutor neglects their responsibilities,” the court emphasized.
“Courts must play an active role in trials, not merely acting as passive recorders of witness statements. Judges should oversee proceedings diligently, ensuring that justice is served even in the face of prosecutorial lapses,” the top court asserted.
READ ALSO: Supreme Court Clarifies: “SC Has No Power of Superintendence Over High Courts”
The Supreme Court emphasized that the trial court should fully utilize its extensive powers under criminal law to gather essential evidence when the prosecuting agency displays indifference or adopts a detached attitude.
Case Title: Anees v. State Govt. of NCT
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
