NEW DELHI, SEPT 14: In a significant ruling that would lessen the workload of trial courts, the Supreme Court on Thursday held that a Public Prosecutor has the right to choose from among the witnesses to be examined during the trial in support of the charges against the accused persons."If there are too many witnesses on the same point, the Public Prosecutor is at liberty to choose two or some among them alone so that the time of the court can be saved from repetitious depositions on the same factual aspect," said a bench comprising Justice K T Thomas and Justice R P Sethi.The ruling came in a murder case where the trial court had acquitted the accused on the ground that prosecution had examined only the relatives of the victim who were interested witnesses and failed to examine independent witnesses. The Rajasthan High Court had reversed the judgement and convicted the accused.Upholding the High Court order, Justice Thomas said the principle of being choosy about citing of witnesses applied in a case where there were too many witnesses cited.The public prosecutor in such cases was not obliged to examine all the witnesses, the Judge said and added if he was satisfied by examining any two or three of them, it was open to him to inform the court that he did not propose to examine the remaining persons in that category.The bench said this would help not only the prosecution for relieving itself of the strain of adducing repetitive evidence on the same point but also help the court considerably in lessening the workload."Time has come to make every effort possible to lessen the workload, particularly those courts crammed with cases, but without impairing justice," Justice Thomas said.In cases where witnesses have turned hostile, the bench said if the public prosecutor got reliable information that any one among the witnesses would not support the prosecution version, he was free to state in court about the fact and skip that witness being examined as a prosecution witness.Justice Thomas said it was open for the defence to cite such hostile prosecution witness as defence witness. Alternatively, the prosecutor could wait further and obtain direct information about the version which any particular witness might speak in court, he said."If that version is not in support of the prosecution case it would be unreasonable to insist on the public prosecutor to examine those persons as witnesses for prosecution," Justice Thomas said and added a decision in this regard has to be taken by the prosecutor in a fair manner.
