Twitter
Advertisement

It's 100 and enough, habitual witness stuns court

Subankar’s admission leads to the acquittal of a 32-year-old woman, arrested by the CST railway police in a mobile theft case

Latest News
article-main
FacebookTwitterWhatsappLinkedin

At a metropolitan magistrate court in Mumbai on April 2, a labourer working at the CST station, Subankar, made a stunning admission. He told the court that it was his 100th deposition as a panch witness (a respectable witness). He also confessed that he was working as a railway labourer without licence.

Subankar's admission led to the acquittal of a 32-year-old woman, arrested by the CST railway police in a mobile theft case.

On April 21, 2011, the police registered a case against one Hafija Shaikh, after she allegedly stole a mobile phone, when the complainant left her phone for charging at a waiting room in the station. The complainant claimed Hafija looked suspicious to her and the latter was arrested after the former raised an alarm.

In its order, the metropolitan magistrate court, presided over by Judge Deepak Bhagwat, held that the there was a possibility that the police allowed Subankar to work as a labourer, even when he was not having a licence, because he was a habitual witness.

"He has been working at the railway station as a labourer for 15-16 years. He has admitted that he does not have a licence. Thus it is apparent that he was allowed to do so because he is helping the police," it said.

In police circles, though, 'habitual' witnesses are no strangers. ""According to law, a panch needs to be independent, trustworthy and respectable. But a normal independent person, if asked to appear as witness, refuses since it is a time-consuming exercise. Thus, these habitual witnesses come into the picture," said former Mumbai police commissioner MN Singh.

"If the defence brings it to the notice of the court, the court would acquit the accused on the ground that a panch is a not a reliable witness," he said.

Railway Commissioner of Police Niket Kaushik said: "The case belongs to 2011. So it is very difficult to comment. Also, it is a court's order, and it will not be appropriate to comment now."

Asked whether any action would be taken against Subankar or the police, Singh said: "In this case, no perjury will be registered against the witness since he has not lied in the court. However, if the prosecution brings the matter to the notice of senior police officers, and if the investigative officer is found at fault, then disciplinary action would be initiated against him.

"Normally in big cases of acquittal, a legal adviser studies the judgment and informs the Commissioner of Police or Superintendent of Police about the loopholes. The Commissioner then takes disciplinary action. The procedure should be followed in judgments passed in petty crime cases too, but unfortunately, it is not."

According to High Court Advocate Abha Singh, "What becomes more serious is that under the law while a witness is required to be neutral, the reciprocal arrangement made by the police such as letting them work as an illegal porter in the railway station is an open violation of law."

Find your daily dose of news & explainers in your WhatsApp. Stay updated, Stay informed-  Follow DNA on WhatsApp.
Advertisement

Live tv

Advertisement
Advertisement