'Criminal justice system in Punjab is breaking down'

An extremely disturbing trend has emerged during the last few years where witnesses in important cases turn hostile, or resile from their original statements before the police or do not support the prosecution theory on material issues during the trails, resulting in acquittal of accused persons.

This tendency reached its climax in the disproportionate assets case against Punjab chief minister Parkash Singh Badal, his wife, son and some other accused where not only important witnesses of the vigilance bureau but also the investigating officer who had collected evidence and filed the challan resiled during the trial proceedings.

The judge called the investigating officer and the supervisory officer to the court and confronted them with facts but both denied any role in the investigation. But they accepted signatures on the investigation documents were theirs.

Finding that no one was willing to support the prosecution case, the judge acquitted Badal, all the other accused and hauled up the investigating officer and the supervisory officer, launching perjury proceedings against them. However, this case exposes the gaping holes in our criminal justice system.

Our judiciary, like the English system is based on the principle that “it does not matter if a hundred guilty are acquitted, even one innocent must not be punished”. In a system so heavily tilted in favour of the accused, witnesses turning hostile is a common occurrence. The witness is not required to sign his statement before the police and is practically free to retract before the court during the trial proceedings. The police have to resort to recording of statements before the magistrate so as to make the witness accountable and prevent him from resiling, but in this case the most disturbing issue is the backing off of the investigating officer, police witnesses and complete surrender of the prosecuting agencies before the accused persons who happen to be persons holding positions of political and administrative authority.

The investigating officer, Shri Surinder Pal Singh, retired from the IPS in October 2009. The All India Services Rules prohibit extension in service beyond two spell of three months each. This officer, on retirement was re-employed by creating a new post and continued in a key position in the Punjab vigilance bureau.

And who ordered his re-employment? It was ordered by the chief minister and deputy chief and home Minister respectively. So why wonder if the officer thus sought re-employment and returned the favour by resiling in the case against the accused?

Accepting such favour from the accused and shielding him from legal action by backing off makes the investigating officer’s action punishable under section 213 of the IPC. On the other hand, the action of making such an offer for getting screened from legal action makes the witnesses liable for punishment under section 214 IPC.

However, the most appropriate punishment for the investigating officer’s violation is covered by section 219 which reads “whoever being a public servant, corruptly or maliciously makes or pronounces in any stage of a judicial proceeding, any report, order, verdict or decision which he knows to be contrary to law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years or with fine or with both”.

Even the role of the prosecuting agency in this case was not above board. The witnesses who changed their versions,  even if declared hostile, were not subjected to strong cross-examination as per procedure. The prosecutor kept quiet when the investigating officer resiled as if he was a consenting partner. He even expressed before the court that no useful purpose would be served by examining the accused under section 313 of the CrPC.

Should he not have taken any objection on resiling of the witness? Perhaps not, because the prosecutor is quite a junior functionary in the department headed by a minister.

The judge rightly called the accused officers in court and cornered them but he could not go beyond a certain point and usurp the duties of the investigating office. or of the prosecutor. He rightly ordered initiation of perjury proceedings against them and referred to most of the above penal provisions. Probably the issue of re-employment was not in the judge’s knowledge. However, in spite of proposed perjury proceedings, no far reaching results can be expected as the final decision would still be in the hands of the two accused.

— The author is former director general of Punjab and Maharashtra Police