One witness for multiple cases in Hyderabad criminal courts

Hyderabad: Amid several judgements delivered by Hyderabad criminal courts during September and October, more than 10 were disposed of on the basis of the testimony of one or two witnesses. Though the facts and circumstances vary, the witnesses were the same in these cases.

One Mamidi Kiran was the lone panch witness and mediator for confession and seizure reports in seven cases at the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Courts. The judgements — either acquitting the accused or sentencing them — were in cases of house breaks and vehicle thefts. The cases were filed by the Osmania University, Kacheguda and Nallakunta police.

Though the police stations, date of offence and date of arrest of the accused vary the panch witness in all cases was Mamidi Kiran.

People are afraid to volunteer as witnesses for many reasons.

In four cases — CCs No. 1241/2016, 1327/2016, 1328/2016 and 1309/2016 — the police put forward two persons, M. Ravinder and G. Avinash Kumar, as panch witnesses. They too featured in the list of stock witnesses.

Stock witness may oblige the police to depose tailored testimony during deposition but sometimes there are chance of them turning hostile.

In two cases of chain snatching, the city police produced Mirza Rasheed Baig and Mohd. Feroze stating that they were the mediators for confession-cum-seizure panchnama.

They deposed before the court that about 5-6 years ago the Humayunnagar police had secured their presence and obtained signatures on some papers and none of the accused was present at that time. Eventually the trial court acquitted the accused in the two chain snatching cases.

This correspondent tried to obtain the police officers’ version on stock witnesses but none of them was willing to speak on record. They admitted that the practice of using stock witness is ages old.

A police officer said, “A witness must be from the locality where the seizure of stolen property or weapons used for a crime were found. No one comes forward as witness. So we depend on persons who oblige us.”

Another police officer said that people were afraid to volunteer to be witness, given that they would have to attend court on many occasions till the disposal of the case. They also fear threats from the accused.

An officer said that the police has to take care of the welfare of stock witnesses as they are always at their disposal.

Mr S. Pradeep Kumar, a criminal lawyer practising at the Nampally courts, said if it was proven that it was a stock witness, the court would be justified in discarding his testimony.

But if a stock witness withstood the test of cross-examination and the court was satisfied, trial courts don’t discard his testimony, he added.

He said that when the trial court brushes aside the testimony of the stock witness, then it is the duty of the court to examine if the other prosecution evidence is enough to sustain the conviction.