The Delhi High Court has expressed serious concern over what it described as the “lackadaisical attitude” of the Delhi Police in dealing with allegations of threats made to a public witness during the course of a criminal trial. The Court observed that such police inaction can contribute to public witnesses turning hostile and thereby weaken the prosecution case. Justice Girish Kathpalia made the observations while considering a bail application moved by an accused in a murder case. The Court's intervention focused particularly on the allegation made by a cab driver that he had been receiving repeated threatening calls after becoming a witness in the case.
The proceedings arose in the matter titled Ms. Faizal & Anr. v. State (GNCT) of Delhi & Anr. The prosecution case involved an alleged murder in which the accused woman was alleged to have been involved with the deceased in an extramarital relationship. According to the prosecution, the accused, along with a co-accused, allegedly killed the deceased and subsequently attempted to conceal and transport the body. The allegations presented a serious criminal case in which the prosecution relied upon a sequence of events following the alleged murder, including the transportation of the body from Delhi towards Gujarat.
According to the prosecution's allegations, after the murder, the accused woman and her mother allegedly packed the deceased's body inside a box. A cab was then allegedly hired for transporting the box to Nizamuddin Railway Station. From there, according to the prosecution case, the co-accused allegedly transported the body by train to Gujarat. The cab driver who allegedly transported the box subsequently became an important public witness in the criminal proceedings. His evidence therefore assumed significance in establishing the prosecution's narrative concerning the movement of the deceased's body after the alleged murder.
The bail proceedings came before the High Court after an earlier bail application had been withdrawn with liberty to approach the Court again after the testimony of the cab driver was recorded by the trial court. The defence therefore relied upon the developments in the trial, particularly the evidence given by the cab driver, while seeking consideration of the fresh bail application. The High Court examined the portion of the witness's chief-examination that had been placed before it to assess the circumstances relevant to the bail plea.
During his testimony before the trial court, the cab driver made an important allegation concerning threats. He stated that he was receiving regular threatening telephone calls from a particular mobile number. The allegation was significant because a witness appearing in a criminal trial had apparently informed the court during his testimony that he was being threatened. Such an allegation naturally raised concerns regarding the safety and independence of the witness and whether attempts were being made to influence or intimidate him during the judicial process.
The High Court specifically examined what steps had been taken by the investigating machinery after this allegation came on record. When the State was asked whether the particular mobile number from which the alleged threatening calls were being made had been tracked, the police officer concerned was unable to explain the position. This absence of a satisfactory response became an important factor in the Court's criticism of the manner in which the police had handled the witness's allegation.
The Court also questioned the concerned SHO/Inspector about the matter. The police officer stated that no action had been taken because the cab driver had not lodged a formal complaint regarding the alleged threats. This explanation did not satisfy the High Court. Justice Girish Kathpalia made it clear that the absence of a separate formal complaint could not, in the circumstances, justify complete police inaction when the allegation had already been made by a witness during his testimony before the trial court.
The High Court described this position as unacceptable. The Court noted that the cab driver's testimony had been recorded as far back as April 16, 2024. Therefore, the alleged threat was not a recent or newly emerging circumstance that the police had no opportunity to investigate. The considerable passage of time after the witness raised the allegation made the lack of apparent investigative action even more concerning from the Court's perspective.
Justice Kathpalia observed that if the investigating officer had been diligently following the trial, the officer should himself have taken note of the allegation and made the necessary inquiry. The Court's reasoning was that the investigating agency cannot simply remain passive when a material prosecution witness informs the court that he is receiving threats. The responsibility of the police, according to the Court's observation, extends beyond merely responding to a formal complaint when circumstances before the trial court themselves disclose a potential threat to a witness.
The Court made a broader observation connecting police inaction with the recurring problem of public witnesses turning hostile. It remarked that such a “lackadaisical attitude” of the police machinery is one of the reasons public witnesses so frequently turn hostile to the prosecution. This observation is significant because witness hostility can have a direct impact on the ability of the prosecution to prove criminal charges. When a witness who initially provides information or supports the prosecution subsequently changes his testimony, the evidentiary foundation of the case may be seriously affected.
The Court's remarks therefore go beyond the individual cab driver and the particular murder prosecution. They highlight the broader institutional responsibility of investigating officers to remain engaged with the trial process and to protect witnesses from intimidation. Once an important witness alleges that threats are being received, the investigating agency is expected to take the allegation seriously and determine whether the threat is genuine, who may be responsible and whether the witness requires protection. Failure to undertake such basic follow-up, the Court indicated, can undermine the criminal justice process itself.
The issue is particularly important in cases where the prosecution depends upon independent or public witnesses. Unlike police witnesses, public witnesses are ordinarily not part of the investigative machinery and may be more vulnerable to pressure, intimidation or inducement. If such witnesses believe that their safety is not being protected, they may become reluctant to participate in the proceedings or may alter their testimony. The High Court's observations indicate that the police cannot treat witness protection as a purely formal matter, especially when the witness himself raises a specific allegation of threats during judicial proceedings.
The Court consequently directed that a copy of its order be forwarded to the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police. The purpose of the direction was to ensure that the allegation made by the cab driver was independently examined at an appropriate supervisory level. By involving the DCP, the Court effectively required the senior police leadership to examine why the allegation had not been acted upon despite having surfaced during the witness's testimony.
The High Court further directed the DCP to register a case and investigate the matter if, upon consideration, such action was found appropriate. This direction leaves the statutory assessment regarding registration and investigation with the competent police authority, while at the same time requiring the allegation to receive proper attention. The direction demonstrates the Court's concern that a witness's allegation of repeated threats should not remain unexamined merely because the witness did not separately approach the police with a formal complaint.
The Court also required a status report to be filed regarding the steps taken, including specifically in relation to the allegation made by the cab driver. Importantly, the status report is required to be personally signed by the concerned DCP. Such a direction places responsibility at a senior supervisory level and seeks to ensure that the matter is not allowed to disappear into routine police correspondence or remain unattended at the level of the investigating officer.
The High Court has listed the matter for further hearing on November 19. Thus, the directions regarding the alleged threats are likely to be followed by the Court's examination of the status report and the action taken by the Delhi Police. The subsequent proceedings may indicate whether the police investigation establishes any substance in the witness's allegations and whether any criminal case is registered pursuant to the Court's directions.
The order also carries significance from the perspective of fair trial principles. A criminal trial is not merely an adversarial contest between the prosecution and accused; it is a judicial process intended to determine the truth on the basis of legally admissible evidence. Witness intimidation can interfere with that process by preventing witnesses from giving evidence freely and truthfully. Consequently, protecting witnesses from threats is closely connected with maintaining the integrity of the trial itself.
At the same time, the High Court's observations should not be understood as a finding that the cab driver was actually threatened by a particular person or that the alleged threatening calls were conclusively established. The Court's immediate concern was the failure of the police to properly inquire into an allegation that had been made by the witness during his testimony. Whether the calls were genuine, who made them and whether they were intended to influence the witness are matters requiring investigation. The Court's directions are aimed at ensuring that those questions are not ignored.
The case also highlights the importance of an investigating officer's continued involvement even after the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial has commenced. Investigation and prosecution cannot be viewed as completely disconnected stages. When new information emerges during trial that potentially affects the safety or reliability of a prosecution witness, the police may have to respond appropriately. The High Court's criticism suggests that investigative diligence must continue sufficiently to ensure that material developments affecting the prosecution case are properly addressed.
The broader message from the judgment is that witness hostility should not automatically be treated as an isolated failure of the witness. Courts may also examine the surrounding circumstances, including whether witnesses were subjected to threats, inducements, pressure or other forms of interference. Where police authorities receive information suggesting such interference and fail to act, the resulting hostility of the witness may raise questions about the adequacy of the investigative process itself.
In conclusion, the Delhi High Court's intervention in Ms. Faizal & Anr. v. State (GNCT) of Delhi & Anr. underscores the responsibility of the police to respond promptly to allegations of witness intimidation. Justice Girish Kathpalia's observation that police inaction can contribute to public witnesses turning hostile is a significant warning against treating witness-safety concerns casually. The Court has directed the concerned DCP to inquire into the cab driver's allegation, register and investigate a case if considered appropriate, and submit a personally signed status report. The matter has been listed for further hearing on November 19, when the Court is expected to consider the action taken by the police.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.