<div>Last week, a Supreme Court bench comprising justices V Gopala Gowda and Arun Mishra approved the guidelines by the Centre which provide a protection to Good Samaritans from harassment and liabilities who intervene to save lives of victims of road accident.<br /><div><br /> This ruling is crucial as many studies have revealed that the citizens largely tend to dither from reacting to an accident victim’s suffering for fear of getting into legal complications.<br /><br />The Supreme Court in the Save Life Foundation case has recapped the role of a Good Samaritan – bystanders and passers-by – who help the accident victims and play a vital role in rushing them to the hospital or providing the instantly required first aid.<br /><br />The Central government has issued guidelines on the directions given by the Supreme Court to be followed by hospitals, police and all other authorities for the protection of Good Samaritans, another set of guidelines known as the Standard Operating Procedure for the examination of Good Samaritans by the police or during trial.<br /><br />It is indeed a heartening response of the Supreme Court and the Central government towards the problem where people do not wish to fulfil their humanitarian duties due to the fear of legal hassles.<br /><br />The World Health Organisation (WHO) in its World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention, 2004, has projected that by 2020, road accidents shall be one of the main contributors to the deaths in India. <br /><br />It has also been accentuated that in developing and underdeveloped countries, the major support that a road accident victim can get is from the bystanders or passers-by. In the view of this, it is a welcome initiative which would definitely curb, to some extent, the existing pattern of indifference and fear which people have towards the road-accident victims.<br /><br />However, the effective implementation of these guidelines, before an operative legislation comes into place, remains an issue to be addressed. The major trouble could be that of implementation of proper witness protection mechanism which lacks in our criminal justice system. <br /><br />The concern for bystanders and Good Samaritans seem to be a part of victim-witness assistance movement that received impetus in the 80s after which the United Nations brought out a declaration on victims of crime and abuse of power in the year 1985. The outcome of these initiatives resulted in the recognition that apart from the accused and the victim, there is another stakeholder in the criminal justice system who is a witness or a bystander willing to help the injured. <br /><br />A study conducted by the author in 2010 found that witnesses are normally a harassed lot. As many as 60% witnesses become witnesses by circumstances and not by choice. The unwilling witness is highly detrimental to the outcome of a trial. The bystander turning into a witness is a crucial category that did not receive enough attention in the proposed guidelines. The investigating agencies find three possibilities in case of a bystander. <br /><br />One, he may be treated as an important witness; second, he may become a suspect in terms of having to do something with the occurrence; and finally, he may also be projected as an accused. The experiences say that the person entangled in any of these three situations is likely to have critical fall-outs. Moreover, a bystander turns witness may not be knowing if he can also be made a suspect or an accused as well. <br /><br />Critical fallouts <br /><br />The guidelines in this case offer a safety cover where Good Samaritans and bystanders will not be subject to civil or criminal liability or forced to be a witness. Though this protection sounds fairly impressive, it cannot be put against the basic principles of policing and adjudication. It is well within the competence of police officers to inquire from any person likely to be having the information relating to the incident. <br /><br />The power vested in police under section 357 of the CrPC hit this arrangement and it is therefore quite vague as to how a person would seek protection in this situation. Even at the adjudication stages the trial court under section 319 of CrPC can summon any person appearing suspect or having information relating to the incident. Despite the protection against civil and criminal liability in these guidelines for the bystanders, it would be difficult for a Good Samaritan to protect himself from such an appearance before the court. <br /><br />The disclosure of personal information is also protected in these guidelines. But there are several instances during the investigation and adjudication where this is highly unlikely. Even in case where a Good Samaritan volunteers to be a witness according to the guidelines, his examination shall be done only on a single occasion and without harassment. <br /><br />One may recall that the same arrangement has been made in the section 309 (2) of CrPC where a witness who appears in the trial must be examined in one go and on the same day. Despite being binding in nature and having the force of law, this provision is often observed in breach. <br /><br />In fact, the guidelines need to be realistic and must be envisaged in a manner so that the encouragement and protection could essentially be given to the Good Samaritan who, in all possibility, would be a useful witness. <br /><br />The guidelines in the present shape are only serving a case where a person comes forward for the help of an injured to take him to the hospital. The possibility of a Good Samaritan becoming a good witness must be explored and the guidelines need to be integrated with what we expect to be an effective witness protection scheme.<br /><br />(The writer is Professor and Chairperson, Centre for Criminology and Victimology, National Law University, Delhi)<br /></div></div>
<div>Last week, a Supreme Court bench comprising justices V Gopala Gowda and Arun Mishra approved the guidelines by the Centre which provide a protection to Good Samaritans from harassment and liabilities who intervene to save lives of victims of road accident.<br /><div><br /> This ruling is crucial as many studies have revealed that the citizens largely tend to dither from reacting to an accident victim’s suffering for fear of getting into legal complications.<br /><br />The Supreme Court in the Save Life Foundation case has recapped the role of a Good Samaritan – bystanders and passers-by – who help the accident victims and play a vital role in rushing them to the hospital or providing the instantly required first aid.<br /><br />The Central government has issued guidelines on the directions given by the Supreme Court to be followed by hospitals, police and all other authorities for the protection of Good Samaritans, another set of guidelines known as the Standard Operating Procedure for the examination of Good Samaritans by the police or during trial.<br /><br />It is indeed a heartening response of the Supreme Court and the Central government towards the problem where people do not wish to fulfil their humanitarian duties due to the fear of legal hassles.<br /><br />The World Health Organisation (WHO) in its World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention, 2004, has projected that by 2020, road accidents shall be one of the main contributors to the deaths in India. <br /><br />It has also been accentuated that in developing and underdeveloped countries, the major support that a road accident victim can get is from the bystanders or passers-by. In the view of this, it is a welcome initiative which would definitely curb, to some extent, the existing pattern of indifference and fear which people have towards the road-accident victims.<br /><br />However, the effective implementation of these guidelines, before an operative legislation comes into place, remains an issue to be addressed. The major trouble could be that of implementation of proper witness protection mechanism which lacks in our criminal justice system. <br /><br />The concern for bystanders and Good Samaritans seem to be a part of victim-witness assistance movement that received impetus in the 80s after which the United Nations brought out a declaration on victims of crime and abuse of power in the year 1985. The outcome of these initiatives resulted in the recognition that apart from the accused and the victim, there is another stakeholder in the criminal justice system who is a witness or a bystander willing to help the injured. <br /><br />A study conducted by the author in 2010 found that witnesses are normally a harassed lot. As many as 60% witnesses become witnesses by circumstances and not by choice. The unwilling witness is highly detrimental to the outcome of a trial. The bystander turning into a witness is a crucial category that did not receive enough attention in the proposed guidelines. The investigating agencies find three possibilities in case of a bystander. <br /><br />One, he may be treated as an important witness; second, he may become a suspect in terms of having to do something with the occurrence; and finally, he may also be projected as an accused. The experiences say that the person entangled in any of these three situations is likely to have critical fall-outs. Moreover, a bystander turns witness may not be knowing if he can also be made a suspect or an accused as well. <br /><br />Critical fallouts <br /><br />The guidelines in this case offer a safety cover where Good Samaritans and bystanders will not be subject to civil or criminal liability or forced to be a witness. Though this protection sounds fairly impressive, it cannot be put against the basic principles of policing and adjudication. It is well within the competence of police officers to inquire from any person likely to be having the information relating to the incident. <br /><br />The power vested in police under section 357 of the CrPC hit this arrangement and it is therefore quite vague as to how a person would seek protection in this situation. Even at the adjudication stages the trial court under section 319 of CrPC can summon any person appearing suspect or having information relating to the incident. Despite the protection against civil and criminal liability in these guidelines for the bystanders, it would be difficult for a Good Samaritan to protect himself from such an appearance before the court. <br /><br />The disclosure of personal information is also protected in these guidelines. But there are several instances during the investigation and adjudication where this is highly unlikely. Even in case where a Good Samaritan volunteers to be a witness according to the guidelines, his examination shall be done only on a single occasion and without harassment. <br /><br />One may recall that the same arrangement has been made in the section 309 (2) of CrPC where a witness who appears in the trial must be examined in one go and on the same day. Despite being binding in nature and having the force of law, this provision is often observed in breach. <br /><br />In fact, the guidelines need to be realistic and must be envisaged in a manner so that the encouragement and protection could essentially be given to the Good Samaritan who, in all possibility, would be a useful witness. <br /><br />The guidelines in the present shape are only serving a case where a person comes forward for the help of an injured to take him to the hospital. The possibility of a Good Samaritan becoming a good witness must be explored and the guidelines need to be integrated with what we expect to be an effective witness protection scheme.<br /><br />(The writer is Professor and Chairperson, Centre for Criminology and Victimology, National Law University, Delhi)<br /></div></div>
