<p>The Delhi High Court’s directive to the state government to frame a witness protection programme within 10 weeks was occasioned by a serious case of perjury in a high-profile criminal case. The court has also ordered trial of model-turned actor Shayan Munshi and ballistics expert Prem Sagar Minocha for turning hostile in the 1999 Jessica Lal murder case. <br /><br /></p>.<p>Their backtracking helped the accused, son of an influential politician, to be freed of murder charges. It was after a big public uproar that he was convicted later by a higher court. But the fact of perjury had yet to be dealt with. Most eyewitnesses had turned hostile, presumably under the influence of the defence, in the case where the murder was committed in full public view. The court has let off 17 of them because it is difficult to distinguish between wilful acts of perjury and genuine loss of memory. But in the case of the two there is a strong case, as it is clear that that they lied. The court should have proceeded against them for perjury much earlier. <br /><br />Witnesses turning hostile is common in the country. It had happened in the case against Sanjeev Nanda, grandson of a former navy chief, who drove his car over six people and killed them. The Supreme Court punished Zahira Sheikh who flipflopped with contradictory statements in the Best Bakery case. It is usually the rich, the powerful and the strong who influence witnesses with inducements, coercion or other methods and thus cause subversion of justice. Most witnesses are unable to resist and it even becomes risky to stick to the truth. That is why there is the need for a witness protection programme.<br /><br />Many other countries have such a programme. The Malimath committee report had suggested it a decade ago. The Delhi high court had issued some guidelines in 2003. The Bombay high court also asked for it in the Best Bakery case. Though the union law ministry agreed to draw up a programme, it has not done it. There may be some witnesses who want to take advantage of their situation and violate their oath of truth. But there are many others who would speak the truth if there is adequate assurance of safety. Even if there is a law some witnesses may be hesitant because there many ways to harass them. But it is the duty of all governments to provide the protection in any case.</p>
<p>The Delhi High Court’s directive to the state government to frame a witness protection programme within 10 weeks was occasioned by a serious case of perjury in a high-profile criminal case. The court has also ordered trial of model-turned actor Shayan Munshi and ballistics expert Prem Sagar Minocha for turning hostile in the 1999 Jessica Lal murder case. <br /><br /></p>.<p>Their backtracking helped the accused, son of an influential politician, to be freed of murder charges. It was after a big public uproar that he was convicted later by a higher court. But the fact of perjury had yet to be dealt with. Most eyewitnesses had turned hostile, presumably under the influence of the defence, in the case where the murder was committed in full public view. The court has let off 17 of them because it is difficult to distinguish between wilful acts of perjury and genuine loss of memory. But in the case of the two there is a strong case, as it is clear that that they lied. The court should have proceeded against them for perjury much earlier. <br /><br />Witnesses turning hostile is common in the country. It had happened in the case against Sanjeev Nanda, grandson of a former navy chief, who drove his car over six people and killed them. The Supreme Court punished Zahira Sheikh who flipflopped with contradictory statements in the Best Bakery case. It is usually the rich, the powerful and the strong who influence witnesses with inducements, coercion or other methods and thus cause subversion of justice. Most witnesses are unable to resist and it even becomes risky to stick to the truth. That is why there is the need for a witness protection programme.<br /><br />Many other countries have such a programme. The Malimath committee report had suggested it a decade ago. The Delhi high court had issued some guidelines in 2003. The Bombay high court also asked for it in the Best Bakery case. Though the union law ministry agreed to draw up a programme, it has not done it. There may be some witnesses who want to take advantage of their situation and violate their oath of truth. But there are many others who would speak the truth if there is adequate assurance of safety. Even if there is a law some witnesses may be hesitant because there many ways to harass them. But it is the duty of all governments to provide the protection in any case.</p>
