Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has recently cancelled bail of a man accused of a criminal conspiracy to murder his wife by giving a ‘supari’ to two men, who finally killed her, despite repeated complaints to police and lodging of five FIRs related to threat, molestation and other offences against him with Bengaluru police and filing of a writ petition in Karnataka High Court for police protection.

The deceased woman had even made a complaint to the Karnataka Chief Minister and a women's organisation also came to her help, accusing Bengaluru's police of being inactive due to extraneous consideration. However, she was found in a pool of blood at her flat on December 21, 2019.

Besides cancelling the bail of Narendra Babu, the Apex Court also ordered recall of the victim's mother, sister and father who had turned hostile after the bail during the pendency of the instant plea.

Taking up a plea by one Munilakshmi, the mother of the deceased, a bench of Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta noted "some disturbing events" as even the appellant, her other daughter and husband had resiled during the pendency of the matter before the top court.

"What has transpired thereafter (after bail) is quite disheartening, and it pricks the conscience of this court. Our attention has been drawn to the fact that there was a gap of around 20 days between the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination of the key witnesses, who are none else than the appellant (PW-1), her daughter- Vidhya (sister of the deceased, PW-4), and Muniraju (father of the deceased, PW-5). They all have turned hostile and retracted from their earlier statements," the bench said.

The bench found "cogent and overwhelming circumstances" indicating misuse of concession of bail, making it imperative upon the court to withdraw the concession of bail forthwith in the interest of justice.

"We are satisfied that there is a prima facie proximity between the grant of bail to Respondent No.1 and an emboldening opportunity for him to win over the witnesses. Respondent No.1, therefore, does not deserve to enjoy the concession of bail at least until all the crucial witnesses are examined. The privilege of liberty extended to him, thus, deserves to be withdrawn for an effective, fair, just and unbiased conclusion of trial," the bench said.

The bench said courts are under an onerous duty to ensure that the criminal justice system is vibrant and effective; perpetrators of the crime do not go unpunished; the witnesses are not under any threat or influence to prevent them from deposing truthfully and the victims of the crime get their voices heard at every stage of the proceedings.

"If a witness turns hostile for extenuating reasons and is reluctant to depose the unvarnished truth, it will cause irreversible damage to the administration of justice and the faith of the society at large in the efficacy and credibility of the criminal justice system will stand eroded and shattered," the bench said.

In order to ensure a fair trial, the bench used its extraordinary power to do complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution and Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code suo motu to recall the three witnesses (appellant, mother, sister and father of the deceased) for further cross examination "after ensuring a congenial environment, free from any kind of threat, psychological fear, or any inducement".

"It seems to us that the unusual and surprising events that have happened post the grant of bail to Respondent No.1, do make out a case for recalling the witnesses for an effective, fair, and free adjudication of the trial," the bench said. 

The court also noted in the case at hand that the family members of the deceased were the most crucial witnesses to test the veracity of the allegations levelled by the prosecution but their stand in the examination-in-chief was diametrically opposite to the one in the cross-examination.     

"The fact that the parents and sister of the deceased have resiled from their earlier standpoint where they had been found to be agitating vigorously before different forums since the year 2019, implores us to invoke our Constitutional powers under Article 142 read with Section 311 CrPC and direct their recalling for a fresh cross-examination after ensuring a congenial environment, free from any kind of threat, psychological fear, or any inducement," the bench said.

Among its directions, the court set aside the high court's August 12, 2020 order and directed accused Narendra Babu to surrender within a week. It ordered the trial court to recall three witnesses and directed the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru to provide round-the-clock security to the three witnesses at least till their fresh deposition.

The court also directed the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru to investigate as to whether the appellant and her family members were threatened, induced, or subjected to any extraneous pressure for retracting their statements. Such a report be presented before the trial court within two weeks, it said.

It also directed that during the further cross examination of the three witnesses, the trial court should observe the demeanour of the accused and "no minacious gesture or appeasing expressions be allowed so that the voluntary, free and unpolluted version of all the material witnesses is brought on record".

Case Title: Munilakshmi Vs Narendra Babu & Anr