The Hindu : Front Page : `No fair trial in sex racket case'

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Jul 05, 2006

Front Page

Front Page

`No fair trial in sex racket case'

Staff Reporter

Government files appeal against acquittal of the accused

Kochi: The State Government on Tuesday filed an appeal against the verdict of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kozhikode, acquitting all the 16 accused persons in the ice-cream parlour sex racket case.

In the appeal filed through Director General of Prosecutions P. G. Thampi, the Government said the witnesses who had clearly supported the prosecution case during the stage of investigation turned hostile during the trial.

The appeal alleged that no earnest effort had been made by the Prosecutor appearing before the Sessions Court to conduct the case properly. The Sessions Judge did not take any steps to see why the witnesses one after the other were changing their earlier statements.

The entire trial was facile and there were no efforts on the part of the Prosecution to find out the veracity of the earlier statements made by the witnesses, it said.

The appeal said that the Sessions Judge, who was legally bound to ask questions to hostile witnesses at such a crucial juncture, did not ask any questions. The media had revealed that the victims were living in a financially well-off condition. The Public Prosecutor did not ask any question to any of the witnesses regarding their financial capacity. It was clear that the witnesses were `purchased' by influential persons.

The Trial Court had forgotten the fact that the court which conducted trial in a criminal case shall not remain a silent spectator while manipulations were being done. The Trial Judge ought to have made earnest effort to find out the truth and not acted as a machine of hearing untrue words of the witnesses.

The Public Prosecutor should ensure that the witnesses would safely depose truth without any fear of being haunted by those against whom they were deposing.

In this case, the representative of the State had forgotten the fact that he had a constitutional obligation and duty to protect the life and liberty of the citizen who appeared as witnesses.

The appeal said that the incapacitation of the witnesses was due to the fact that they were under certain rich and influential persons having control over the then Government. The support given to the witnesses who turned hostile would undermine and disturb public confidence in the administration of justice.

Therefore, the Government pleaded, the court should grant leave for filing the appeal.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Front Page