Punjab and Haryana HC: Can draw ‘adverse inference’ if official witnesses absent for long

Tribune News Service

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, October 26

Implication of innocents in false drug cases has been a matter of surmises since long. But the failure of “official witnesses” to step in the witness box for over a year has made the Punjab and Haryana High Court observe it prima facie has reasons to believe that the accused are not guilty of the offence at least at the current stage.

Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri also made it clear that adverse inference could be drawn against the prosecution in matters where the state could not justify the absence of the prosecution/official witnesses for a long period.

No witness examined in March 2021 case

Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri said a petitioner was undisputedly not involved in any other case and not a habitual offender. The charges in the present case were framed on March 5, 2021.

Thereafter, 19 adjournments were granted by a special court, but no prosecution witness was examined till date. The petitioner was not having criminal background and had alleged false implication.

The assertions came as Justice Puri granted bail to an accused after making it clear that the court did not wish to make any observation on the merits of the matter. The bail plea was being allowed considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the long custody of two years and eight months.

The matter was brought to Justice Puri’s notice after accused Rakesh Kumar filed a second petition for regular bail in a case registered on February 15, 2020, under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act at Malout city police station in Muktsar district.

Justice Puri observed the petitioner was undisputedly not involved in any other case and was not a habitual offender. The charges in the present case were framed on March 5, 2021. Thereafter, 19 adjournments were granted by a special court, but no prosecution witness was examined till date. The petitioner was otherwise not having criminal background and had alleged false implication.

Justice Puri asserted the witnesses mostly were official in cases especially under the NDPS Act when the criminal law was set in motion by the police authorities and the case was presented to the court. They were either a part of the police party or other forensic experts. At times, other independent and private witnesses were also there. But prosecution story was primarily based on the prosecution evidence by the official witnesses-police party.

Justice Puri also asserted the court during the course of arguments specifically questioned the state counsel on the justification of prosecution/official witnesses not stepping into the witness box for a long period, resulting in a delay in trial and the petitioner’s long incarceration. But the state counsel could not justify their absence. “In the present case, in view of the facts and circumstances, this court can safely draw an adverse inference against the prosecution. On the basis of the conduct of police officials, this court has prima facie reasons to believe at least at this stage that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence,” Justice Puri added.

About The Author

Tribune News Service

The Tribune News Service brings you the latest news, analysis and insights from the region, India and around the world. Follow the Tribune News Service for a wide-ranging coverage of events as they unfold, with perspective and clarity.