LexHIMANSHU SINGH SABHARWAL versus STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• [2008) 4 S.C.R. 783 HIMANSHU SINGH SABHARWAL A v. STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. ... (Tra,psfer Petition (Crl.) No.175 of 2007) MARCH 12, 2008 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.406 - Criminal proceedings - Transfer of, from one State to another--Death of College Professor due to brutal assault by certain persons c in presence of police personnel, media persons and members of public - Sessions Court, Ujjain conducting trial - Several eye witnesses resiling from statements made by them during investigation - Three police witnesses also resiling from their earlier statements - Deceased Professor's son seeking D transfer of the proceedings on ground of coercion and threat " to witnesses; doubtful sincerity of the Investigating Officer and ~ non cross-examination by Public Prosecutor of persons who resiled from statements made during investigation - State not objecting to transfer of proceedings but pleading that such E transfer should not to be construed as acceptance of the allegations made by petitioner about impartiality of the investigating agency or the Public Prosecutor or the manner • of trial - In view of the stand of State, without examining the correctness of the allegations made, Supreme Court directed :0( that the case in question pending in the Court of Sessions F .... Judge, Ujjain be transferred to the Court of Sessions Judge, Nagpur. Criminal Trial - Necessity of fair trial - Failure to hear material witnesses is certainly denial of fair trial - State has a G definite role to play in protecting the witnesses, to start with at least in sensitive cases - Legislative measures to emphasise A.. prohibition against tampering with witness, victim or informant have become the imminent and inevitable need of the day 783 H - 784 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 4 S.C.R. A Criminal Trial - Role and power of the Courts - Held: Courts have to take a participatory role in a trial - They are not expected to be tape recorders to record whatever is being stated by the witnesses - s.311, CrPC and s.165 of the Evidence Act confer vast and wide powers on Court to elicit all B necessary materials by playing an active role in the evidence collecting process - Power of Court under s. 165 of the Evidence Act is in a way complementar1 to its power under s.311, CrPC - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s.311 - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 165. C The Petitioner's father, a Professor in Government College, was brutally beaten up by certain persons for taking rigid stand in the College union elections, which resulted in his death. The incident allegedly occurred in the presence of several police officials, media persons D and members of the public. FIR was lodged and after investigation, charge sheet was filed and charges framed against Respondent nos.2 to 7. Trial commenced in the Court of Sessions Judge, Ujjain, during which several eye- witnesses resiled from the statements made by them E during investigation. Three potice1 witnesses, PWs. 32, 33 and 34, also resiled from their earlier statements. Petitioner prayed before this Court for transfer of the Sessions case, contending that the witnesses were coerced and threatened; that the role of the Investigating F Officer gave ample scope to doubt the impartiality and.the sincerity of the investigating age!ncy and that the Public Prosecutor did not cross-examine the persons who had resiled from their statements mc1de during investigation. According to the Petitioner, the Sessions Court was not G acting as required under law. The State stated that in the larger interest of justice and transparency, it has no objection in case the Sessions case is transferred to some othiar State, but this should H not be construed to be acceptance of the allegations made • HIMANSHU SINGH SABHARWAL v. STATE OF M.P. 785 AND ORS. r by the petitioner about the impartiality of the ·investigating A agency or the public prosecutor or the manner of trial. Similar stand was also adopted by the counsel appearing for the accused-respondents. To show their bona tides, it was stated that the police officials PWs 32, 33 and 34 may be recalled for cross examination even without any B application in terms of s.311,CrPC being filed. Disposing of the transfer petition and the connected writ petition, the Court HELD: 1.1. A trial which is primarily aimed at c ascertaining truth has to be
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.