Fewer witnesses on the stand,faster disposal of 26/11 case

On May 8,when Kazmi refused to admit any formal documents such as spot panchnamas and post-mortem reports of the 166 persons killed during the attacks,Special Public Prosecutor Ujwal Nikam had voiced concerns that the trial could take over a year for completion as the number of witnesses to be examined will increase.

However,the prosecution is likely to rely heavily on certain previous rulings of the apex court on a provision that enables formal evidence to be admitted without examining witnesses.

Legal experts pointed out that the issue revolved around Section 196 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC),which states ‘The evidence of any person whose evidence is of a formal character may be given by affidavit and may,subject to all just exceptions,be read in evidence in any inquiry,trial or other proceeding under this Code.’

It goes on to state,‘The court may,if it thinks fit,and shall,on the application of the prosecution or the accused,summon and examine any such person as to the facts contained in his affidavit.’

One of the Supreme Court rulings that may be relied on by the prosecution dates back to September 28,2001,in a case of the State of Punjab versus Naib Din who was arrested on October 11,1984,for possession of 4.5 kg of opium and booked under the Opium Act.

Police constables Dhiam Singh and Ramji Das,who were part of the police team that arrested Din,had collected 10 gm of opium as a sample in a matchbox and had sealed it and sent it to the chemical examiner’s office for analysis. The accused had challenged the evidence and the Chandigarh High Court had ruled in his favour.

However,when the state challenged the order in the Supreme Court,Justices KT Thomas and SN Variava held that the police officials who played a formal role need not be examined in court,and that their evidence could be given in the form of affidavits. The object behind such a provision was to help the court to gain time and cost,and relieve witnesses of trouble.

In an earlier order dated April 26,1978,in a case of Shankaria versus the State of Rajasthan,the Supreme Court upheld a High Court order admitting fingerprint specimens taken from the accused as formal evidence without one Bhamar Singh,the man who took the specimens,being examined in court.

The apex court ruled that there was no need to examine Bhamar Singh as a witness in court,as an affidavit had been filed by him in the trial court concerned.