STATE Vs. SUJATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS far as the office objections are concerned, in view of the affidavit, the delay is condoned. LA. I is allowed.

(2.) HOWEVER, on merits, we have heard the learned S. P. P. whose only submission was that the Trial Court ought to have ensured the presence of the witnesses which does not seem to have been done. From the record, we are unable to conclude that the non-appearance of the witnesses was due to any fault on the part of the prosecution. We however need to observe that this court has come across many instances where the witnesses do not appear and on investigation, the reason that emerges is that the witnesses were unaware of the fact that their presence was required before the Court. In all such cases, it has unfortunately been revealed that the concerned authorities namely the Police have not served the summons on the witnesses for reasons that are more than obvious to us. The non-appearance of the witnesses undoubtedly results in the failure of the prosecution and the direct beneficiary in such instances are the accused before the Court and it is more than clear to us that this is one of the methods adopted obviously in collusion with the accused for purposes of sabotaging the prosecution.

(3.) THE Cr. P. C. invests the Trial Courts with sufficient powers to secure the presence of the witnesses. If for any reason the dispute has been compromised, that fact must honestly be placed before the Court but in the majority of cases where the offences themselves are non-compoundable, it is very clear that there is a definite pattern adopted in ensuring the failure of the prosecution by either not serving the witnesses or making false statements that they are not traceable. We refuse to accept that witnesses can just vanish into thin air and furthermore that the police machinery is incapable of tracing them out even if they have shifted their place of residence etc.