'Quite disheartening, pricks conscience': SC cancels bail of Karnataka man accused of murdering his wife

The apex court also directed the Bengaluru police commissioner to provide round-the-clock security to the deceased’s family, till their fresh depositions, and also investigate if they were threatened, induced, or subjected to any extraneous pressure for retracting from their statements. The court stressed that if a witness turns hostile for extenuating reasons and is reluctant to depose the unvarnished truth, it will cause irreversible damage to the administration of justice and the credibility of the criminal justice system will stand eroded and shattered. -- Reports ETV Bharat's Sumit Saxena.

New Delhi:The Supreme Court has cancelled the bail of a man who allegedly hatched a criminal conspiracy by hiring contract killers to murder his wife.

The apex court also directed the Bengaluru police commissioner to provide round-the-clock security to the deceased’s family, till their fresh depositions, and also investigate if they were threatened, induced, or subjected to any extraneous pressure for retracting from their statements. The court stressed that if a witness turns hostile for extenuating reasons and is reluctant to depose the unvarnished truth, it will cause irreversible damage to the administration of justice and the credibility of the criminal justice system will stand eroded and shattered.

A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta, in a judgment delivered on October 20, said it is “quite disheartening” and it pricks its “conscience” that the family of a murdered woman turned hostile and retracted from their earlier statements within a gap of 20 days.

"The fact that the parents and sister of the deceased have resiled from their earlier standpoint where they had been found to be agitating vigorously before different forums since the year 2019, implores us to invoke our Constitutional powers under Article 142 read with Section 311 CrPC", said the bench.

The apex court issued a direction to recall the family for a fresh cross-examination after ensuring a congenial environment, free from any kind of threat, psychological fear, or any inducement. “Our attention has been drawn to the fact that there was a gap of around 20 days between the examination­-in-­chief and the cross-examination of the key witnesses, who are none else than the appellant (mother of the deceased), her daughter (sister of the deceased), and father of the deceased. They all have turned hostile and retracted from their earlier statements”, said the bench.

Article 142 provides a unique power to the Supreme Court, to do “complete justice” between the parties, where, at times, the law or statute may not provide a remedy. Justice Kant, who authored the judgment on behalf of the bench, said the courts are under an onerous duty to ensure that the criminal justice system is vibrant and effective and perpetrators of the crime do not go unpunished.

“The witnesses are not under any threat or influence to prevent them from deposing truthfully and the victims of the crime get their voices heard at every stage of the proceedings”, he said. The bench observed that unusual and surprising events have happened post the grant of bail to Narendra Babu (respondent no.1), which do make out a case for recalling the witnesses for effective, fair, and free adjudication of the trial.

Justice Kant said the ‘threat’ and ‘intimidation’ of the witnesses have always been a matter of serious concern amongst all the stakeholders, and a major challenge before this court is to ensure a fair trial amidst the hostility of witnesses.

“Their testimony determines the fate of a trial before the court of law, without which the court would be like a sailor in an ocean sans the radar and the compass. If a witness turns hostile for extenuating reasons and is reluctant to depose the unvarnished truth, it will cause irreversible damage to the administration of justice and the faith of the society at large in the efficacy and credibility of the criminal justice system will stand eroded and shattered”, said justice Kant.

The bench said it is satisfied that there is a prima facie proximity between the grant of bail to Babu and an emboldening opportunity for him to win over the witnesses, therefore he does not deserve to enjoy the concession of bail at least until all the crucial witnesses are examined.

The bench observed that the courts often grapple with balancing the most precious right to liberty embodied in Article 21 of the Constitution on one hand and the right of the orderly society, which is committed to the rule of law, on the other.

The bench said the deceased's mother has been vigorously pursuing this appeal seeking cancellation of bail given to Babu and in her examination-­in-­chief, she has specifically named Babu as the main conspirator in the murder of her daughter.

Justice Kant said: “Her sudden somersault, therefore, cannot be easily detached from the chain of allegations made against Respondent No. 1 in the past, of influencing the police, hiring goons, repeatedly assaulting the deceased, and various attempts to take away her life. All these accusations, for the limited purpose of these proceedings, do suggest that Respondent No. 1 has the potential to influence the investigation or the witnesses who were slated to depose against him”.

The apex court also noted that the deceased in her lifetime wrote to the police commissioner seeking protection and legal action against her husband and her family members.

The apex court directed the trial court to recall the deceased’s family members for their further cross-examination and directed the police commissioner to investigate the threats to their security and submit a report before the trial court within 2 weeks subject to the right of objection to Babu and his co­-accused if there is any finding against them in such report.

The bench said the trial court will closely observe the demeanour of Babu or his counsel during further cross-examination of the deceased’s family and other important prosecution witnesses. “No minacious gesture or appeasing expressions be allowed so that the voluntary, free and unpolluted version of all the material witnesses is brought on record”, said Justice Kant.

The apex court judgment came on an appeal filed by the mother of the deceased challenging the August 12, 2020, order of the Karnataka High Court granting regular bail to Babu. The victim was found dead on December 21, 2019, in her apartment. She was found lying in a pool of blood and in a supine position.

Her husband was accused of hatching a criminal conspiracy to kill his wife by giving a ‘supari’ to two accused, who assaulted the deceased fatally. All the accused were arrested.