Court Affirms Adequate Witness Protection Under Uttarakhand Witness Protection Act, 2020
In a significant ruling, the Uttarakhand High Court has dismissed a criminal transfer application filed by Rakesh Banwal, the primary witness in a murder trial, seeking to move the case from Dehradun to Haridwar due to alleged threats from the accused's family. The judgment was pronounced by Justice Siddhartha Sah, emphasizing the comprehensive witness protection measures available under the Uttarakhand Witness Protection Act, 2020.
The case pertains to Sessions Trial No. 117 of 2022, where Aditya Tomar is charged under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The applicant, Rakesh Banwal, expressed concerns over threats to his life and that of his family, allegedly from individuals linked to the accused. These threats were reportedly made to dissuade him from participating in the trial proceedings.
In his affidavit, Banwal detailed incidents of intimidation, including an episode on February 10, 2023, where anti-social elements allegedly threatened him on the court premises. Despite reporting these threats to the police, Banwal claimed inadequate response from law enforcement agencies.
However, the court noted that the evidence of the applicant had already been recorded as PW1 on January 9, 2023. Additionally, the report from the Vth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dehradun, stated that no formal complaint of threats had been lodged by the witnesses with the court.
Justice Sah highlighted the provisions of the Uttarakhand Witness Protection Act, 2020, which provides a robust framework for the protection of witnesses. The Act empowers the competent authorities to implement interim and final protection measures based on threat analyses conducted by senior police officials. The court emphasized that these measures are designed to ensure witnesses can testify without fear for their safety or that of their families.
The judgment underlined that if any other witnesses in the ongoing trial face similar threats, they are entitled to seek protective measures under the Act. The court's decision underscores the judiciary's reliance on statutory frameworks to safeguard the integrity of judicial proceedings and the safety of individuals involved.
The ruling also mandated communication of the order to the concerned Senior Superintendent of Police to ensure the applicant's safety and to address any potential threats to other witnesses in the trial.
Bottom line:-
Transfer of a criminal case rejected on the ground that adequate provisions for witness protection are already provided under the Uttarakhand Witness Protection Act, 2020, and the evidence of the applicant has already been recorded as PW1.
Statutory provision(s):
- Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
- Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code
- Section 25 of the Arms Act
- Uttarakhand Witness Protection Act, 2020 (Sections 2(i), 4, 5)
Rakesh Banwal v. State of Uttarakhand, (Uttarakhand) : Law Finder Doc id # 2934954
