The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has directed the High Court Registry to take steps through the government to notify the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018, and implement the various clauses under the scheme in all districts.
Justice G. Chandrasekharan observed that the Witness Protection Scheme came into effect following a Supreme Court direction. However, there is a mention in the scheme that it would come into force from the date of government notification.
The scheme provided a standing committee in each district to be chaired by the District and Sessions Judge with the head of the police in the district as a member and the head of the prosecution in the district as its member-secretary.
A Witness Protection Fund should be created and a Witness Protection Cell had to be established for duly implementing the order. Also, specially designed ‘vulnerable witness courtrooms’ had to be created.
The special arrangements in these courtrooms would have live video links, one way mirror and screens, apart from separate passages for witnesses and the accused, option to modify the image of the witnesses and to modify audio feed of witness voices.
A report submitted to the court by the Registrar General, Madras High Court, said the copy of the scheme was circulated to all Principal District Judges. Steps were taken to set up centres for examination of vulnerable and child witnesses and vulnerable witness deposition centres.
The judge then directed the Registry to take steps through the government to notify the scheme after getting approval of the Chief Justice of Madras High Court.
The court passed the direction while hearing the bail petition of an advocate, Chokkar, one of the accused in the murder of advocate K. Ranjith Kumar in Uthamapalayam in Theni district. The murder is said to have taken place following a dispute over a property settlement.
The court took into account the fact that investigation in the case was completed and a final report was filed. The court granted bail with conditions to Chokkar, 63, after it was submitted that he was suffering from a heart disease and other ailments.
In a connected matter, the court cancelled the bail granted to the other accused in the case. The bail granted to Jeyaprabhu, Rajesh and Ananthan was cancelled in view of the fact that they had threatened the complainant and family members after their release on bail.
