Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a dispute under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), involving the accused's right to access statements of protected witnesses. The appellant was arrested in FIR No.5/2020 registered under Sections 18, 19, 20, 38, and 39 of the UAPA, along with provisions of the Arms Act, 1959, and Explosive Substance Act, 1908, and was later arraigned as an accused in a supplementary chargesheet. The respondent, the prosecution, filed an application under Section 44 of the UAPA read with Section 173(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), seeking declaration of five witnesses as protected witnesses and exclusion of their statements from documents provided to the accused. The trial court allowed this application on 01.06.2021, ordering the statements to be kept in a sealed cover. Subsequently, the appellant filed an application under Section 207 Cr.P.C. praying for redacted copies of these protected witnesses' statements. The trial court allowed this application on 11.09.2021, directing provision of redacted statements after expunging identity details. The respondent appealed to the High Court, which reversed the trial court's order on 11.10.2021, holding that it conflicted with the earlier order and amounted to an impermissible review. The legal issue centered on whether the defence could seek redacted statements of protected witnesses under Sections 207 and 161 Cr.P.C., despite their protection under Section 44 UAPA and Section 173(6) Cr.P.C. The appellant argued that fair trial required disclosure, while the respondent contended that the earlier order precluded such access and that Section 207 Cr.P.C. was conditional on Section 173 Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court analyzed Sections 173(6) and 207 Cr.P.C., noting that Section 173(6) is an exception allowing exclusion of statements only if irrelevant or disclosure is not essential for justice or expedient in public interest. It interpreted Section 44 UAPA as aimed at keeping witness identity and address secret, not withholding entire statements. The court reasoned that fair trial principles necessitate providing redacted copies to the accused, balancing witness protection with the right to defense. It held that the trial court's order allowing redacted statements was correct, as it did not review the earlier order but properly exercised powers under the relevant sections. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and restoring the trial court's direction for provision of redacted statements of protected witnesses.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Protected Witnesses - Right to Redacted Statements - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 173(6), 207, 161 and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 44 - The appellant, an accused in a UAPA case, sought redacted copies of statements of witnesses declared as protected under Section 44 UAPA read with Section 173(6) Cr.P.C. The trial court allowed the application, but the High Court reversed, holding it amounted to review. The Supreme Court held that the accused is entitled to redacted copies of protected witnesses' statements under Section 207 Cr.P.C. to ensure a fair trial, as Section 173(6) only permits exclusion of irrelevant or non-essential parts, not entire statements, and witness protection under Section 44 UAPA aims to keep identity and address secret, not withhold all testimony. (Paras 1, 9-16) B) Criminal Procedure - Fair Trial - Disclosure of Evidence - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 173(6), 207 - The court emphasized that in normal trial, all prosecution witness statements must be disclosed to the accused, with Section 173(6) being an exception applicable only if the statement is irrelevant or disclosure is not essential for justice or expedient in public interest. The right under Section 207 Cr.P.C. is not absolute but must balance with witness protection, allowing redaction of identity details while providing relevant evidence. Held that fair trial principles require provision of redacted statements to the accused. (Paras 10-12, 14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether in the case of certain witnesses being declared as protected witnesses under Section 173(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Section 44 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, by the trial court, can the defence seek recourse to the remedy under Section 207 and Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. for obtaining copies of redacted statements of these protected witnesses
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order dated 11.10.2021, and restored the trial court's order dated 11.09.2021, directing provision of redacted copies of statements of protected witnesses to the accused after expunging identity details
Law Points
- Protected witnesses under Section 44 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act
- 1967
- do not preclude the accused's right to receive redacted copies of their statements under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
- 1973
- as fair trial principles require disclosure of relevant evidence while safeguarding witness identity
- and Section 173(6) Cr.P.C. permits exclusion only of irrelevant or non-essential parts
- not entire statements
