SMRUTI TUKARAM BADADE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR

Citation: [2022] 1 S.C.R. 443 · Decided: 11-01-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
443
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 443
443
SMRUTI TUKARAM BADADE
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR
(Miscellaneous Application No. 1852 of 2019)
JANUARY 11, 2022
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
SURYA KANT, JJ.]
Guidelines/Norms/Directions: Guidelines – Issuance of – As
regards recording evidence of vulnerable witnesses in criminal
matters – Directions issued to facilitate the implementation of
directions issued in State of Maharashtra v Bandu @ Daulat’s case
for setting up ‘special centres for examination of vulnerable
witnesses in criminal cases – Definition of “vulnerable witness”
contained in Clause 3(a) of the ‘Guidelines for recording evidence
of vulnerable witnesses in criminal matters’ of the High Court of
Delhi widened – Along with child witnesses who have attained the
age of 18 years, to include age and gender neutral victims of sexual
assault, witnesses suffering from “mental illness”, any witness deemed
to have a threat perception, any speech or hearing impaired
individual or a person suffering from any other disability – Issuance
of direction to the High Courts to adopt and notify a Vulnerable
Witnesses Deposition Centres Scheme within the stipulated period –
To devise and implement an all India VWDC training programme,a
Committee to be constituted– Issuance of directions to all High Courts
and concerned role assignees to facilitate conducting of training
programmes, to set up an in-house permanent VWDC Committee
and one permanent VWDC in every District Court or additional
Sessions Court establishments – Furthermore, NALSA and SLSAs to
provide an effective interface for the scheme for training –
Constitution of India – Art. 142 – Criminal law – Witnesses.
Sakshi v Union of India (2004) 5 SCC 518 : [2004] (2)
Suppl. SCR 723; State of Punjab v Gurmit Singh (1996)
2 SCC 384 : [1996] (1) SCR 532; State of Maharashtra
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
444
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
v Bandu @ Daulat (2018) 11 SCC 163; Mahender
Chawla v Union of India (2019) 14 SCC 615 : [2018]
(14) SCR 627 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2004] (2) Suppl. SCR 723
relied on
Para 1, 5(c)
[1996] (1) SCR 532
relied on
Para 1
(2018) 11 SCC 163
relied on
Para 2, 4, 5(ii)
[2018] (14) SCR 627
relied on
Para 5(e)
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Miscellaneous
Application No. 1852 of 2019 in Criminal Appeal No. 1101 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.03.2019 of the High Court
of  Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Application No.165 of 2017.
Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija (AC), Sr. Adv., Ms. Jaikriti S. Jadeja,
Praveen Gaur, Kashish Aneja, Advs. for the Appellant.
Brijender Chahar, Sr. Adv., Gopal Jha, Gautam Singh, Shreyash
Bhardwaj, Ms. Shirin Khajuria, Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, Ms.
Deeplaxmi Subhash Matwankar, Arjun Garg, Aakash Nandolia, Ms.
Sagun Srivastava, Sanjai Kr. Pathak, Ms. Shashi Pathak, Vivek Gupta,
Ms. Jyoti Chahar, Karan Chahar, Ms. Asmita Singh, Gautam Narayan,
Ashok Mathur, V. N. Raghupathy, Md. Apzal Ansari, R. Neduraman,
Ms. Radhika Gautam, Jagjit Singh Chabbra, Ms. Uttara Babbar, Manan
Bansal, Nikhil Goel, Ms. Naveen Goel, Vinay Mathew, Rahul Chitnis,
Sachin Patil, Aaditya A. Pande, Geo Joseph, Ms. Shwetal Shepal, Sibo
Sankar Mishra, Niranjan Sahu, Umakant Mishra, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. The need for and importance of setting up facilities which cater
to the need for creating a safe and barrier free environment for recording
the evidence of vulnerable witnesses has engaged the attention of this
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
445
Court over two decades. In Sakshi v Union of India1, this Court issued
directions in addition to those which were contained in the decision in
State of Punjab v Gurmit Singh2. The relevant extract from the decision
in Sakshi (supra) reads thus:
“34. […]
(1)
The provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 327 CrPC shall,
in addition to the offences mentioned in the sub-section,
also apply in inquiry or trial of offences under Sections 354
and 377 IPC.
(2)
In holding trial of child sex abuse or rape:
(i)
a screen or some such arrangements may be made
where the victim or witnesses (who may be equally
vulnerable like the victim) do not see the body or
face of the accused;
(ii)
the questions put in cross-examination on behalf of
the accused, insofar as they relate directly to the
incident, should be given in writing to the presiding
officer of the court who may put them to the victim
or witnesses in a language which is clear and is not
emba

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.