Access to justice and protection for victims and witnesses

The witnesses and the victims of serious crimes apprehend a perpetual in danger when the culprit is powerful, or rich, and the people in question or witnesses have a place in a socially or monetarily minimized category. The absence of victims and witness assurance schemes and laws act as a noteworthy obstruction to get equity and provide justice. It dissuades exploited people from helping out examinations and affirming in court and makes it almost certain that they will turn hostile and withdraw prior proclamations, adding to outlandish exoneration.

Nations like the UK, US, Canada, and Australia have security laws for witnesses and victims. Australia has the Protected Disclosures Act (1994) and the US has the Victim and Witness Protection Act (1982), the Victims’ Rights and Restitution Act (1990). The Supreme Court has over and again said that India needs a victim and witness protection scheme. The United Nations General Assembly in 1985 adopted the ‘Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power’ that regarded victims to be a significant observer and gave forward four goals, the materialness of whose should be guaranteed by the member countries: Access to equity and reasonable treatment, Restitution, Compensation, and Assistance.

In India, a large number of cases include rich persuasive people or degenerate government officials on one side, where witnesses turn antagonistic, thereby creating a mockery out of the standards of law. Under Section 151 and 152 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, victims and witnesses are shielded from being asked revolting, shameful, hostile inquiries, and questions proposed to bother or affront them. There is no other arrangement for assurance of witnesses, as against dangers, terrorizing or any prompting whereby they are kept from revealing the truth. When an accused is discharged on bail, one of the conditions forced by the Court on the denounced is that he will not tamper with any evidence, or approach the witnesses. This, once more, isn't as an arrangement for protection, however, just to guarantee the preliminary isn't rendered infructuous. Judges likewise hold in-camera preliminaries to guarantee testimony by observers with no dread or shame. The Supreme Court has allowed the recording of proof by video-conferencing. All these are lacking a strong legal backing and without which there is no particular lawful arrangement ensuring defensive measures before or after the trial.

In 2006, the Law Commission of India gave suggestions for "authoritative or administrative activity" for witness assurance. However, India has not established a law for witness security outside the courtrooms. Any fruitful assurance scheme should assess the danger and decide the assurance needs for each situation cautiously and take into consideration adaptability, and incorporate standard development. Simultaneously, in serious cases, particularly sexual offences, the courts should immediately diminish the hazard from the accused. The horrific incident of Unnao assault survivor who was burnt alive on her way to meet her legal advisors in Rai Bareli is another occurrence of the absence of laws regarding victim protection. Both the Protection of Children against Sexual Offenses Act (POCSO) and the I.P.C. have arrangements to ensure exploited people and witnesses in court, for example, leading in-camera preliminaries, without the nearness of the media or public. The 198th Law Commission Report titled "Witness Identity Protection and Witness Protection Programs" underlined that the schemes of witness protection need not be constrained to instances of sexual offenses or terrorism but however ought to stretch out to every genuine offense, along these lines and thus expanding the ambit of its pertinence and functioning. Delhi turned to be the only state to receive a Witness Protection Scheme in 2015. Protection measures can include armed protection, regular patrolling around witnesses’ house, installing closed-circuit television cameras, and relocation [1]. However, India doesn't have a national law for the protection of victims and witnesses who are powerless outside the court.

In the well-known Bakery case [2] of wherein, while characterizing 'Fair Trial', the Supreme Court saw that if the witnesses get undermined or are compelled to give false proof that likewise, they would not, brings down an honest trial. The sufferer was Zahira. She had seen the crime and the criminals, yet when opportunity arrived for her to be sufficiently strong to oust under the steady gaze of the Court, she found that she was in an atmosphere which was completely threatening to her - the defense lawyer, the examiner, the accused, the supporters of the denounced - maybe the judge whom she didn't know of Along these lines, she turned into a hostile witness, at risk for prevarication and furthermore subject to disdain of court. Hence, there is a need to deliver a bill to save and ensure victims/witnesses' privileges, equity and due process.

Such a bill should target the following points:

• To be informed upon demand, when the denounced or indicted individual is discharged from guardianship or has gotten away.
• To be available at all criminal procedures where the accused has the option to be available.
• To be heard at any procedure when any post-conviction bail is being considered by a skilled courtroom.
• To a quick trial and conclusion of the case after the conviction and sentence.
• To educate victims and witnesses regarding their constitutional rights.

This is important to guarantee that such people take an interest in the lawful procedure without any dread and thus, do not lose faith injustice.

[The author, Divya Vishal is a law student at National University of Study and Research In Law, Ranchi]

1. 1. Asaram Case Highlights Need for Witness and Victim Protection in India, NEWS18 (April 27,2018) , https://www.news18.com/news/opinion/opinion-asaram-case-highligts-need-for-witness-and-victim-protection-in-india-1731121.html
2. 2. Zahira Habibulla H Sheikh And Anr. v. State Of Gujarat And Ors., MANU/SC/1344/2006; 2006(3)SCALE 104; (2006)3SCC374.