Summary
Victims of arson and violence during the 2016 Jat reservation agitation in Haryana sought transfer of the resulting murder and dacoity trial from Jhajjar to Delhi. They alleged that an influential advocate had caused witnesses to turn hostile and that the prosecution was not acting fairly. The Supreme Court declined transfer because 42 witnesses had already been examined. It also refused to replace the recently appointed Special Public Prosecutor, given his record. It stressed that protecting life and property is the State's elementary function and that the prosecutor must fearlessly ensure the guilty do not escape. Complaints about the prosecutor may go to the Director of Prosecution, and requests for protection under the 2018 Witness Protection Scheme to the judge, prosecutor or Superintendent of Police.
Issues
- Whether a Sessions trial arising out of violence during the 2016 Jat agitation should be transferred out of Haryana under Section 406 CrPC, or another Special Public Prosecutor appointed, on allegations of influence over witnesses and an unfair prosecution.
Provisions considered
- Section 406, read with Article 139A(2) of the Constitution, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Transfer was refused having regard to the passage of time and the examination of about 42 witnesses, with the petitioners left to pursue other remedies. (¶¶ 1, 8, 12)
- Applications for protection, Witness Protection Scheme, 2018An intimidated witness may write to the presiding judge, the Public Prosecutor or the Superintendent of Police of the district, and the petitioners were left free to do so, the authorities to act in accordance with law. (¶¶ 10, 11, 18)
Held
- The State exists to protect the lives and property of those it governs, and rule of law is part of the basic structure; the criminal courts must be able to function so that the guilty are punished and the innocent exonerated, and the Public Prosecutor, while not seeking conviction by hook or crook, must fearlessly adduce evidence, since any successful dilution of the criminal law strikes at the rule of law. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16, 17)
- The Special Public Prosecutor appointed on 13.05.2022 had long experience and faced no allegations, so no replacement was ordered at that stage; if the petitioners believe he is not acting fairly they may approach the Director of Prosecution, who must take appropriate steps, and the observations made will not affect the trial court's decision on the evidence. (¶¶ 9, 18)
Result
Transfer Petition (Criminal) No. 125 of 2019 disposed of without transferring S.C. No. 285 of 2016 pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Jhajjar; the petitioners left free to approach the Director of Prosecution regarding the Special Public Prosecutor and the presiding judge, Special Public Prosecutor or Superintendent of Police for witness protection.