Email
Print
ShareShayan Munshi & Co turn hostile in Jessica Lal case. Law students debate the hostile witnesses phenomenon.
No strict actions fan witness flight
The Indian legal system has enough provisions to book people for perjury. The Law of Estoppel prevents one from going back on his statement. The Law of Evidence also holds that whatever is said first is to be treated as evidence. However, I am yet to hear of anyone being held guilty of perjury in Indian courts. Since the judiciary hasn't clamped on hostile witnesses so far, the incidence of witnesses backtracking has increased. The most recent example is that of Shayan Munshi and others retracting statements. It's unfortunate that the accused in the Jessica Lal case went scot free just because these witnesses turned hostile. The courts need to take initiative to ensure cases don't collapse due to hostile witnesses. -- Pooja Patil
Soft stand on perjury must change
How often do we see the accused walk scot-free only because the key witnesses turned hostile at the last minute? The fact that the judiciary doesn't penalise people for acts of perjury allows witnesses to switch sides. The Best Bakery case is a classic example where the main witness, Zahira has been flip-flopping at will. I hope someone files a PIL asking why hostile witnesses are let off instead of being slapped with perjury. -- Vishal Birajdar
Everyone's scared for his/her life
We have to be realistic. Everyone is scared for his/her life. If the witness is threatened with his life, its only natural for him to flip sides. Before we talk of trying people for perjury, we must have a credible and efficient witness protection programmes. It is not fair on the judicial system, but what can one do? In a typical case, a witness may find himself between the devil and the deep sea.
If he testifies, he could be putting his life to risk and if he withdraws, he could face judicial ire. As a result, people may stop coming up to testify. -- Deepak Chaurasia
Witnesses must trust court
Perjury is dealt with severely in other countries, but in India, for some reason, it isn't taken as seriously. We need a separate section for perjury so that it can be slapped without additional procedures. Typically, statements obtained in the police station can be challenged claiming that they were taken under duress. However, you cannot undermine the authority of the court by backtracking on statements made in front of the court. You must trust the court enough to protect you and your interests as a witness. -- Supriya Devegudi
Common for witness to turn hostile
It's rather difficult to prove perjury. Witnesses can always retract their statements saying that they were taken under duress. In such cases, there is an issue of the court's integrity and the witness's integrity. The court will consider human integrity higher. However, in cases such as that of Zaheera Sheikh, who changed her testimony several times, the court must take action to make sure there is no miscarriage of justice. -- Rumma Jalan
'The reality is different'
Vibhav Krishna
There are various vagaries to a trial. Perjury is a serious offence but it should be well defined. Many a time, a statement or a certain version may be attributed to someone because of the media or the gravity of a certain situation. If at a cross section level a statement is proved wrong then it is not perjury. Perjury is only when someone lies under oath in a court of law.
There have been instances where action is not taken against perjury, but there are certain reasons for it. After a case is done and the accused is acquitted he does not want to do anything with the case. Therefore the burden of proving perjury falls on the state. This is a very time consuming as well as expensive process. But, in the high profile cases, it is essential that perjury be taken seriously just to restore public confidence, but the reality is different.
Vibhav is a lawyer
