2008 (3) TMI 772 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Coercion and Threats to Witnesses
2. Impartiality of Investigating Agency and Public Prosecutor
3. Fair Trial and Judicial Conduct
4. Transfer of Case for Fair Trial

Summary:

1. Coercion and Threats to Witnesses:
The petitioner, Himanshu Singh Sabharwal, alleged that witnesses in the trial of the murder of his father, Prof. H.S. Sabharwal, were coerced and threatened, leading to them resiling from their statements made during the investigation. This included three police witnesses, Dhara Singh (PW-32), Sukhnandan (PW-33), and Dilip Tripathi (PW-34).

2. Impartiality of Investigating Agency and Public Prosecutor:
The petitioner raised concerns about the impartiality and sincerity of the investigating agency and the public prosecutor. It was highlighted that the public prosecutor did not cross-examine the witnesses who resiled from their statements, indicating a lack of effort to ensure justice.

3. Fair Trial and Judicial Conduct:
The judgment emphasized the principles of a fair trial, stating that the trial should be a search for the truth and not a bout over technicalities. It stressed that the presiding judge must actively participate in the trial to elicit all relevant materials necessary for reaching the correct conclusion. The court also noted the importance of protecting witnesses from threats and coercion to ensure they can safely depose the truth.

4. Transfer of Case for Fair Trial:
The State of M.P., represented by Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, agreed to the transfer of the case to another state in the interest of justice and transparency, without accepting the allegations of partiality. The Supreme Court directed that Sessions Case No. 291 of 2006 be transferred to the Court of Sessions Judge, Nagpur, Maharashtra. The trial would resume from the stage it was at when the stay order was passed. The petitioner and the respondent-State were permitted to suggest two names each for the appointment of a public prosecutor, with the final decision to be made by the Sessions Judge, Nagpur. The fees and expenses of the public prosecutor would be borne by the State of M.P. The public prosecutor could seek the recall of any witness already examined u/s 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion:
The Transfer Petition was disposed of, and no further order was necessary in W.P.(Crl.) 173 of 2006, which was also disposed of accordingly.