Punjab and Haryana HC: Can draw ‘adversarial inference’ if official witnesses absent for lengthy

Punjab and Haryana HC: Can draw ‘adversarial inference’ if official witnesses absent for lengthy



Tribune Information Service

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, October 26

Implication of innocents in false drug circumstances has been a matter of surmises since lengthy. However the failure of “official witnesses” to step within the witness field for over a 12 months has made the Punjab and Haryana Excessive Court docket observe it prima facie has causes to consider that the accused should not responsible of the offence at the very least on the present stage.

Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri additionally made it clear that adversarial inference might be drawn towards the prosecution in issues the place the state couldn’t justify the absence of the prosecution/official witnesses for an extended interval.

No witness examined in March 2021 case

Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri mentioned a petitioner was undisputedly not concerned in every other case and never a routine offender. The costs within the current case had been framed on March 5, 2021.

Thereafter, 19 adjournments had been granted by a particular courtroom, however no prosecution witness was examined until date. The petitioner was not having legal background and had alleged false implication.

The assertions got here as Justice Puri granted bail to an accused after making it clear that the courtroom didn’t want to make any remark on the deserves of the matter. The bail plea was being allowed contemplating the information and circumstances of the case, significantly the lengthy custody of two years and eight months.

The matter was delivered to Justice Puri’s discover after accused Rakesh Kumar filed a second petition for normal bail in a case registered on February 15, 2020, beneath the provisions of the Narcotic Medicine and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act at Malout metropolis police station in Muktsar district.

Justice Puri noticed the petitioner was undisputedly not concerned in every other case and was not a routine offender. The costs within the current case had been framed on March 5, 2021. Thereafter, 19 adjournments had been granted by a particular courtroom, however no prosecution witness was examined until date. The petitioner was in any other case not having legal background and had alleged false implication.

Justice Puri asserted the witnesses largely had been official in circumstances particularly beneath the NDPS Act when the legal regulation was set in movement by the police authorities and the case was introduced to the courtroom. They had been both part of the police get together or different forensic specialists. At instances, different unbiased and personal witnesses had been additionally there. However prosecution story was based on the prosecution proof by the official witnesses-police get together.

Justice Puri additionally asserted the courtroom in the course of the course of arguments particularly questioned the state counsel on the justification of prosecution/official witnesses not entering into the witness field for an extended interval, leading to a delay in trial and the petitioner’s lengthy incarceration. However the state counsel couldn’t justify their absence. “Within the current case, in view of the information and circumstances, this courtroom can safely draw an adversarial inference towards the prosecution. On the idea of the conduct of police officers, this courtroom has prima facie causes to consider at the very least at this stage that the petitioner is just not responsible of the offence,” Justice Puri added.





Supply hyperlink

Leave comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *.

%d bloggers like this: