Court denies compensation to witness in case of delayed trial

The question is relevant in view of a landmark decision by the Supreme Court that a witness is a guest of a court invited through summons.

But in an order last week,an Additional Sessions Judge at Tis Hazari court said: “If he (a complainant) has any grievance against the state then he may avail the appropriate remedy available under the law. A trial court or a revision court is not empowered to grant him any compensation.”

The petition was filed by one Vinod Bharti,who sought damages to the tune of Rs 1 crore from the Delhi government because of the delay in recording his statement.

A prosecution witness in a 1999 dowry case,Bharti’s plea said he was last examined on October 1,2004,and the recording of the rest of his statement was adjourned.

His first petition,filed before a magistrate,was dismissed.

Bharti moved the sessions court,contending that the magistrate should have accepted his plea in the light of an apex court judgment directing courts to expeditiously examine a witness.

The judge,however,upheld the adverse order and said a trial court was not empowered to entertain his plea.

“No doubt a witness is the guest of the court,but the delay in the present case cannot be attributed to the accused or the state only,” the judge said. “A revision court is not empowered to grant compensation.”

Newsline talked to a few legal experts,who strongly favoured a pro-witness stand by courts and the drafting of a statute to address the problem.

Former Delhi High Court judge R S Sodhi refused to accept that a court lacked powers to grant relief in such cases.

“A plea of this kind can be dismissed on merit but I will not agree a court does not have enough powers. Witnesses are the pillars of the justice disposal system and they must be protected and compensated if any wrong is caused to them,” he said. Currently a Supreme Court lawyer,Sodhi added that a comprehensive legislation must be drafted so such applications are decided in the interests of justice.

Chief Prosecutor B S Joon said: “While the CrPC empowers a court to impose costs on the state or the accused for adjournments,it does not entitle a witness to receive damages.”

Granting of compensation can be construed as an extension of the provisions involving protection of witnesses and hence,there must be specific laws to address the issue,Joon said.

SC ruling in Shambhu Nath case in 2001
Marshalling the right of speedy trial,the apex court had dealt with the provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) that should be followed and practised by trial courts.

The court had held that a witness was to be mandatorily examined when he appeared unless there are extraordinary reasons not to do so.

“The court must know that most witnesses could attend the court only at a heavy cost to them. Certainly they incur suffering and loss of income. The meagre amount of bhatti (allowance) which a witness may be paid by the court is generally a poor solace for the financial loss,” it had said.