Track Attendance, Sensitise About Speedy Trial: High Court Issues Directions To Punjab DGP Flagging Non-Appearance Of Official Witnesses

While flagging the repeated non-appearance of police witnesses which delays criminal trials, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a set of directions to the Punjab Director General of Police (DGP).

Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul said, "the responsibility of police officials extends beyond the maintenance of law and order; it includes cooperating with the judicial process to ensure that trials are conducted efficiently and expeditiously and when police officials, who are often cited as formal witnesses, fail to appear without cogent reasons, they not only delay the proceedings but also jeopardize the fair administration of justice."

To address the issue, the Court directed the DGP to take the following steps:

(i) Accountability and compliance: Effective measures must be implemented to ensure that police officials cited as witnesses appear before the trial Court on the dates fixed. Non-compliance without sufficient cause must result in strict disciplinary action.

(ii) Monitoring mechanism: A robust monitoring system must be established to track the attendance of police officials in ongoing trials. Regular reports on the compliance should be submitted to the competent authority for review.

(iii) Sensitising programmes: Police officials must be sensitised about their role in facilitating speedy trials and the constitutional implications of their non-appearance on the rights of both the accused and the complainant.

The Court also cautioned the authorities to treat the issue "with the seriousness it deserves."

The justice delivery system cannot function effectively without the active cooperation of its stakeholders, particularly those tasked with upholding the rule of law, it added.

The Court further said that by ensuring timely attendance of prosecution witnesses, the State can fulfill its dual obligation of safeguarding the personal liberty of the accused while simultaneously ensuring that victims of crime are not denied their right to speedy justice.

These observations were made while hearing regular bail in FIR registered under Sections 376, 376-D (A), 323, 120-B, 366, 366-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

The Court noted the submissions that the petitioner has been in custody since February 2021, yet the trial has not been concluded due to the continuous absence of certain prosecution witnesses, specifically police officials.

In pursuance of Court's order SSP of the district had appeared and while accepting the delay due to the repeated absence of prosecution witnesses, despite the issuance of bailable warrants, he tendered an apology for the lapses.

The SSP also informed the Court that departmental inquiries have been initiated against the erring officials.

 After hearing the submissions, the Court observed that while it is regrettable that the trial has been delayed due to the absence of certain prosecution witnesses, "it needs to be noticed that these witnesses are formal in nature and their testimony is unlikely to change the course of the trial. The trial is now at an advanced stage, with only one witness remaining to be cross-examined."

Considering the seriousness of offence and the risk of abscondence, the Court rejected the plea.

However, the Court highlighted the issued of delay in trial due to repeated non-appearance of official witnesses.

Justice Kaul emphasised that, "the right to a speedy trial is a fundamental guarantee enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which protects not only the personal liberty of an accused but also the larger interests of justice. Delays caused by the failure of prosecution witnesses to appear before the trial Court undermine this right, leaving the accused in prolonged incarceration and perpetuating uncertainty about their fate."

The judge added that equally, the complainant is entitled to timely justice. The protracted absence of key prosecution witnesses impedes the swift resolution of cases prolonging the trauma faced by victims and diminishing their faith in the judicial process.

"Justice delayed is justice denied, and the failure of police officials to discharge their duties as prosecution witnesses further erodes public confidence in the system," opined the Court.

Mr. Gagandeep Singh Bajwa, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Rana, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

Title: XXXX v. State of Punjab