Police cannot be allowed to tutor the prosecution witness

Facts

1. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 407 of 2019 is the accused no.1, and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1609 of 2011 is the accused no.2.The Trial Court convicted both the appellants for an offence punishable under Section 302, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. According to the case, the deceased had instructed accused no.1 to deliver idlis at his home. On learning that accused no.1 had not delivered the idles, he immediately went out and reached the house of accused no. 1.
3. Accused no.2 was present on the spot. Accused no.1 entered his house, brought with him a billhook and assaulted the deceased with the billhook. The accused no.2 held the deceased and accused no.1 assaulted the deceased with the billhook on his neck. Both the accused fled after that.

Contentions of the appellant

The first information report shows that the incident occurred at 10.30 pm. Whereas approximate time of death mentioned in the post-mortem notes, it appears that the incident must have happened before 7 pm. His second submission is that though other independent eyewitnesses were available, the prosecution had chosen to examine only the witnesses closely related to the deceased who were tutored witnesses. His further submission is that it was the deceased who went to the house of accused no.1. He further submitted that there was a sudden fight between the deceased and the accused no.1, and in their sudden fight, without any premeditation, the accused no.1 assaulted the deceased.

Contentions of respondent

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that that accused no.1, after a dispute with the deceased, entered his house, brought billhook and then assaulted the deceased shows that there was a clear intention on his part to assault the deceased. Both the accused chased the deceased after one blow given by accused no 1 on the index finger of the deceased, the accused no.2 held the deceased, and after that, accused no.1 gave a fatal blow to the neck of the deceased with Billhook.

Observation

1. PW-1 is the father of the deceased, who had admittedly not seen the incident. PW-2 is the mother of the deceased. In the cross-examination by the advocate for accused no.1, she stated, “Yesterday, I, my husband and other witnesses went to Haridwar Mangalam Police station. There, the police authorities taught us how to adduce evidence”.
2. Thus, it is apparent that witnesses were taught by the police how to depose against the accused. This happened a day before the day their evidence was recorded before the Court. This is a blatant act by the police to tutor the material prosecution witnesses. All of them were interested witnesses. Their evidence will have to be discarded as there is a distinct possibility that the said witnesses were tutored by the police.

Principle/ ratio

The Police cannot be allowed to tutor the prosecution witness. This kind of interference by the Police with the judicial process amounts to gross misuse of power by the Police machinery.

Judgement

The appeals are allowed.

Both the Sessions court and the High Court have committed an error in convicting the appellants.

Citation

Case Title: Manikandan v/s state

Case no: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1609 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 407 OF 2019

Credits

Name: – Parul

University: – DAV UNIVERSITY JALANDHAR