Introduction

• This is a landmark case dealing with factors related to police protection of witnesses.

Facts

• A person's son was killed at a wedding, prompting them to file a legal petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 in the Delhi High Court.
• The petition aimed to establish guidelines for witness protection.
• It was based on the idea that witnesses must feel safe from threats or pressure to tell the truth in court and ensure justice is served.
• Previous law commissions had also looked into problems with witnesses turning hostile and had suggested guidelines.
• The petitioner wanted guidelines to ensure that justice could be served quickly and fairly, and to make sure witnesses didn't face uncertainty.

Issues Involved

• Whether the witness protection become an urgent necessity as per the current scenario as the witness turn hostile and it cause the unnecessary delay?

Observations

• The court delineated several key considerations to be weighed in determining whether a witness should receive police protection. The competent authority, tasked with this evaluation, must take into account various factors, including:
  • The nature of the risk to the witness's security, particularly originating from the accused or their affiliates.
  • The nature of the ongoing investigation in the case.
  • The significance of the witness's testimony in the case and the importance of the information or evidence they provide or have agreed to provide.
  • The financial implications associated with providing police protection to the witness.
• In its deliberations, the court referenced the seminal case of Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan 1997, which established a precedent for considering international conventions in the absence of domestic legislation, provided they do not infringe upon fundamental rights or societal harmony.
• In accordance with these principles, the "Witness Protection Guidelines" were formulated and were to be adhered to until formal legislation was enacted.
• The court further outlined the obligations incumbent upon law enforcement agencies:
  • When recording a witness's statement under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), it is imperative for the investigating officer to apprise the witness of the Witness Protection Guidelines and inform them of their right to seek assistance from the competent authority.
  • The responsibility for providing protection to the witness rests with the Commissioner of Police, subject to an order from the competent authority directing police protection.

Conclusion

• The Court directs the State to give due publicity to the guidelines framed.
• The Court in 2015 sentenced the accused of the death of petitioner’s son in this case.