Last Updated on October 23, 2023 by News Desk
Recently, the Supreme Court cancelled the bail of the man accused of his wife’s murder and recalled the witnesses for fresh examination after finding out the sudden summersault taken by vital witnesses.
The bench comprising justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta has invoked its power under Article 142 of the Indian constitution and section 311 CrPC to recall witnesses for fresh examination in order to ensure just and fair trial proceedings.
The bench was hearing an appeal filed by the deceased family, against the decision of the Karnataka High Court granting regular bail to the man accused under sections 109, 120B, 201, 302, 450, 454 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
In the present case, the Marriage between Vinutha M. and Respondent was solemnised in the year 2006. It is alleged that Respondent was having an extramarital affair. He and his family members allegedly started harassing Vinutha M. soon after the birth of their child and pressured her to sign the divorce papers. Vinutha M. filed multiple criminal complaints against the respondent, of harassment including alleged attempts made on her life leading to the registration of several First Information Reports (FIR). She has also filed a complaint accusing her husband of paying 15 lakh to goons for her contract killing.
Due to alleged continuous attacks and threats to her life, the Complainant wrote a letter to the Police Commissioner requesting for police protection. Despite all the efforts made, no attention was paid to her request.
Unfortunately, the complainant (wife) was found dead in her apartment on 21st December 2019. The deceased’s mother lodged a new FIR which included charges under section 302 0f IPC. As per the police investigation, the respondent was eventually arrested. Thereafter, he was released on bail by the high court which observed that there was a lack of evidence to prove a criminal conspiracy.
The appeal was filed by the deceased family (appellant), for the cancellation of the bail given to the respondent. The court further noticed some disturbing events that occurred during the pendency of the case. It noted that a Notice was issued in the SLP in 2021 but the matter could be taken up for an effective hearing in 2023. It also sheds light on the fact that witnesses have turned hostile and retracted their statements. Such a sudden change of testimony raised the concerns before the court.
“What has transpired thereafter is quite disheartening, and 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 no one else 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 from their earlier statements.” The court said.
The court further contended that it might have limited scope in interfering in the bail order but it has all the right to withdraw bail if there is evidence of misuse.
“If it is found that an undertrial has attempted to misuse the concession of bail either by influencing the witnesses or tampering with the evidence or trying to flee from justice, such person can be committed to custody by withdrawing the concession of bail.” It observed.
Therefore, the bench set aside the HC’s August 12, 2020 order and directed the respondent to surrender within a week. It required the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru to provide round-the-clock security to the three witnesses until their fresh deposition.
The court also ordered the trial court to recall three witnesses (appellant, mother, sister and father of the deceased) for further cross-examination by “ensuring a congenial environment, free from any kind of threat, psychological fear, or any inducement”.
Case title: Munilakshmi v. Narendra Babu
Written by Shagun Behal
