 Good evening friends. Amongst us we have Dr. Shandana Phillips who is an associate professor in the CMR University. She has already done webinars with us and she takes us to the deeper dive within a span of 45 minutes to one hour. And when we connected with her, she said that safeguarding witness is one of her close topics, quite close to her. And therefore on a weekend we thought that we should understand the causes of safeguarding the witnesses, how that has come into being and what are the safeguards provided to a witness. Good evening once again, one and all of you. I thank Beyond Law for giving me this opportunity to be here and share with you all a few thoughts or the concept of a witness program. Now, you know, this is a concept which we've been hearing in the last few years or decades which has come up, you know, which is a topic which has earned a lot of attention. Now, even before going into this particular topic, I would like to throw light on a few aspects of our criminal justice system. At the outset, I would like to give to you all the thought of an adversarial system. You know, we need to start from there. In the course of my presentation, I would be just trying to tell you all how this concept of witness protection has come into being. Again, then what are the various thoughts that we can have about it and what's the present situation. So it's just going to be a simple presentation or a discourse with regard to, you know, witness protection. Now, we know what an adversarial system is. We know that our system is completely an adversarial system. Now, what exactly is this adversarial system? We have evidence which is presented to a neutral judge. So the judge is there, you know, the terminology that he uses, the judge is like an umpire. He sits there, he listens to both the sites. There is a compact between the prosecution and the defense and which will pull, you know, which will try to put up their cases, their evidences and cases. They will make sure they ensure that their self-interest is being protected and how do they protect it during trial by submitting all the relevant facts. Whatever evidence is needed is presented before the court, whether it be the prosecution or the defense. And then the judge takes this into account and don't forget I use the word called evidence. So and then the judge looks into the evidence. But then when I said evidence and I said prosecution, don't forget this is at the trial stage. Just before the trial stage, we all know that there was an investigation stage. And it was during this investigation stage that the police officer would have made an attempt to draw a case to bring out the fact and issue and who the culprit could be. So whatever be the case diary that the police would be submitting under section 174 of the CRPC will be based upon the evidences that are being collected by him. Which includes that we all know that is overall and documentary evidence. So basically it goes with, you know, the statements made by witnesses, etc., etc. And this is what has been submitted to the prosecution and then the prosecution is arguing and along with the defense or opposite to each other with regard how to take up their case. They base their evidence. Now when it comes before the court, one thing that we all know is that the prosecution needs to prove beyond reasonable doubt. The second, the benefit of doubt goes to the accused. And third, that he is presumed to be innocent until proved guilty. Now these are the three principles that underline a criminal justice system which takes through an adverse or which follows an adversarial concept. So the burden as we all know is upon the prosecution to prove the case and how beyond reasonable doubt. And what does the prosecution have? It has evidence which through investigation and through recordings and statements have been submitted before the court for trial. Now at this stage, you know, it's important that we go to understand when we set statements, I said statements of witnesses, statements of accused which we otherwise call as confession, all these are being included. So understanding that this is our system, understanding that this is the role of the judge, understanding that, you know, these are the principles underlying the role of the prosecution as well as the defense. We need to understand, we also need to look at the evidence. No doubt, we know the evidence. What's the evidence? According to the evidence act, we have oral and documentary evidence. You know, there's no change in that. Now when we, that's when, so now documentary evidence, every one of us know what the documentary evidence is and you know, that's not our topic here. So let's go back to, you know, what the oral evidence is about. Now oral evidence as defined under the evidence act is trying to tell us about or it happens through recording of statements of witnesses. That's the general concept that is anyone who goes to the court is being examined, draws examined and reexamined. Now this person called the witness could be the PW that's the prosecution witness or the defense witness. Now how would his statement come to the court at the stage of investigation? That is 161 CRPC. You can read it along with 164 clause 1 and 5 of the CRPC which gives us a thought about recording of statements and sure all of you would know about it and you know, you all have come across it. Now in that 161 speaks about examination of witnesses by the police. So this is where we start. So the moment you speak about a witness, witness is not somebody who comes to the court and says, I want to be a witness. I'm ready to become a witness. You know, that's not how it happens. You are called a witness or you're categorized in the formulation of a witness through 161. So there it says any police officer, if you read through 161, which I would not want to reiterate here, but then any police officer making an investigation under this investigation chapter, or any police officer, whoever he is taking care of may examine orally any person. And then who is that person? A person who is acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. So the wordings that is used in 161 is any person. So you can be anybody. So which we have decisions which have said that that concept any person can include a witness, it can even include an accused. That's what the judge, that's what judgments tell us, because the word person is why? And at the stage of 161, the police is not very sure who the culprit could be, not necessary to understand or understanding who the person is or having doubts. They would want to have the chain of circumstances complete so that the evidence is perfect. And that's one of the reasons, and that's one of the reasons why, and that's one of the reasons why, you know, yeah, sorry. And that's one of the reasons why you are only terming it to be the terminology being called as person. So when the police is asking you questions, the police, all that the police is trying to do is call an evidence. Now when he is questioning any person who is acquainted with the facts and circumstances, in his sheet, he would mention your name. So there you will be known by your name or however it is. And once the police zero in on to the accused, the police would want to, you know, have the chain of circumstances complete without leaving a gap so that the case is perfect for trial and that the accused doesn't go scot free. Now this being the situation, once that investigation is completed, or because I've already told you about 164, let me also tell you just what 164 is about. Now 164 is also just trying to tell you, in case, you know, in the course of these statements that are made to the police, one of those persons that we mentioned is an accused, accused himself. That statement that he makes can turn out to be a confession. So when it turns out to be a confession, the police would want to, we know that the confession made before a police officer has not been accepted or in police custody has not been accepted and hence to give it weightage under 164, they get it recorded. Now this statement that is recorded and we have the procedure that is to be followed. This statement that is recorded, you know, becomes a solid evidence before the court during trial. That is a judicial confession that we are speaking about. Now he, the warning given to him is that he's not bound to make a confession and if he does this, it will be taken against him. Where he, you know, later on he claims is 20 clause 3 self-incrimination. That doesn't happen because yeah, the warning has been given and later on the magistrate under clause 4 gives an undertaking, you know, that he's already warned the person about this and stuff. So the statement is getting that the recording of the confession happens under 164. However, clause 5 tries to tell you any statement other than a confession. 164 clause 5 tells you any statement. So confession, you know, is accused and yes, the procedure has been followed. You need to make it valid. You know, it should be a judicial confession to be called a judicial confession. What are the conditions? Yes, we're not going into it. But then 164 clause 5 is trying to tell you any statement other than a confession, which is made under subsection 1 shall be recorded in such manner as provided by the recording of opinion in the opinion of the magistrate, which is best fitted to the circumstances of the case. And if needed, the magistrate can record his oath and all those things. So this is, so this is wide enough to include the statement of a witness. Many a times, you know, what happens is we say, huh, recording of the confession, 164. It's not a recording of the confession. The sub, the title of the section tells you a recording of confessions and statements. That means what 64 is wide to include not only the statements made by an accused, but also the statements of a witness to make it much more valid. So in fact, from there, we should start a topic of protection of witness. Okay, because the moment they come to know that he's a witness and if they come to know that he's a solid witness, his protection becomes important. But however, many a times it is not necessary that it should happen because your witness can also be the, if it's a section offense, it can be the rape victim herself. You know, where she will have to, she will be speaking and the magistrate records her statement. We know how it goes. So there are, there are different ways in which this recordings happen. Now this testimony of the witness in fact plays a dissonant role at the time of, you know, in the pursuit of we trying to deliver justice to victims. That's, that's, that's something that we need to know this recording of the statement. Of the witness is where we start. That's where, you know, and that's very important. This statement should be repeated again during the trial. The person should be confident to speak what he said once again. So, you know, this, but never though there were recommendations and though there were concerns about this in a few judgments here and there. This concept of witness protection or that a witness need to be protected was never understood or never felt by a justice system until the best bakery case, which I would call it to be Zahira Habibullah versus state of Gujarat. Now, this was one of those landmark judgments, which, you know, through light where the court is trying to, you know, call upon the statements made by Bentham. When he says, witnesses are the eyes and ears of justice. You know, that concept of a witness becoming an eyes and ear of justice is so important is so in depth that anything should be forgotten to get justice to the victim. So that being the concept. So that's where, so then, you know, the court tries to say the, in case the witness is not given that protection. And the witness is not feeling the security of it. The trial gets petrified and paralyzed and it will never constitute a fair trial. You know, which, which is just against the criminal justice system that we are following. Now, you know, so there in fact is fair the court. So, you know, this is that as I told you in the beginning, this is just, you know, to share with you a few thoughts with regard to witness protection. So when I told you the best victory case or Zahira Habibullah's case is the landmark judgment where the court as once again, you know, forced to make up a situation wherein the system or the law or the legal framework should be good enough to bring out the concept of witness protection to make us understand or make its people understand the importance of witness protection and how criminal justice system can get violated or paralyzed, denying a fair trial to anybody in case a witness is not being protected. Now, when I told you about the statements which is made by the police also under 161. When these statements are being presented, the prosecution goes through the case file to understand that, you know, how many of these people are who all can be good witnesses to their case. It's the same with the what you call the defense as well to understand. Yes, how many of them can be brought in, you know, as witnesses for this case. Now, when they try to bring in, we know examination happens cross examination and re examination, all this happens. But however, the prosecution might not be able to give a complete protection to the witness and the witness at this point of time can turn to be hostile. Now, the evidentiary value of hostile witness is not as in don't order topic. We might have to touch it a little bit just to understand, you know, how important witness protection is. So, 154 of the evidence act speaks and tells us about this concept called hostile witness. But what we should understand this, we should again get back to the CRPC to understand, you know, how can you use this statement? So, when I say that the person is turned to be hostile, are you trying to say with that we close the evidence? No, the evidence law very clearly tells you that if you understand that the person is hostile, what do you mean by hostile? That when you have brought a witness, the witness makes a statement against your interest. Who is this you, you could be the prosecution, you could be the defense. If you offer the prosecution, when you have brought a witness and the witness speaks against you, you call the witness or you understand the witness to be hostile when the witness speaks against you. When the witness speaks against you. Now, that moment, the prosecution will have to put a proposal to the court asking the court to declare you to be hostile. Now, that's left to the court whether to declare you hostile or not because there are instances where the person can be also speaking the truth. So, thereby, you know, that's left to the court. But what we need to understand, because that's why I, you know, started with 161. But what happens is once you have been declared to be hostile, the party who's brought you or for whom you were supposed to appear, let's say for the prosecution, gets the right to cross-examine you. Now, under 161, the statement that I told you, which is recorded by the police has got no evidentiary value because it's just recorded by the police, unless and until it is further recorded by the judicial or the magistrate. But the CRBC tells you that this statement made by the person in the police station under section 161 can be used to contradict him. Okay? Can be used to contradict him. Why is it so? So that just to declare the person hostile, to show his hostility towards trial, to show his hostility towards the party and thereby show his hostility towards the party and thereby declare him. So, that means that the statement of the witness can never be taken again. Probably, during the time of investigation, he would have been a prime witness. He would have been an important piece of evidence or his statement would have been an important piece of evidence which filled the gap of the chain of circumstances, you know, which if he moves out of, if he turns to be hostile, will make no sense for the trial. So, to avoid that is why, you know, 161 clearly tells you, you don't have to worry, there is this statement. I think, you know, it is 162, which gives you a proviso to the usage of the statement because it says, when any witness is called for prosecution in such inquiry, and any part of the statement, if duly approved, may be used by the accused. And if the permission of the court by the prosecution, so 162 is telling you who all can use the statement. One, the accused can use the statement and second, the prosecution himself can use the statement. So, that's where, you know, the witness concept lies, which says that the prosecution can use this to contradict such witness, because one fortified says that you can use it for cross examination under the 145 of the Evidence Act. So, thereby, using that principle, 162 is reiterating and telling you, you don't have to worry, if the person is turned hostile, you can use the very same statement to contradict him. Which statement? The recording of the 161 statement, the police statement. So, that's why, you know, because I'm from the academia, you know, when we teach students, we say, you know, we go on repeating and asking them, what is exactly the evidentiary value of a 161 statement? So, they're supposed to know that, you know, when we say that, you know, this is, this statement is nothing but otherwise used to contradict, it can be used by the accused, or otherwise the prosecution should contradict. Now, why is this? This is there for a reason that a witness should never try to step back. The purpose is, you know, that saying that if you come and tell me that you don't know this and what you said in the 161 was wrong, we will contradict you. So, you know, that fear should be there. So, that's a reason. And, you know, that's a reason why this concept is underlined under 161. Now, this situation of contradicting or a person turning hostile would not happen if there could have been proper protection schemes. So now, let me come to, so I just gave you the background of, you know, where all protection of a witness comes and to make sure that the witness does not turn hostile. What other things are there in the procedural code and the evidence act that we have, which says that at any point of time, we will not accept the hostility of the statements made by a hostile witness. I know there are, yes, we, you know, look at accomplice and all that, that's altogether different, but then as far as in hostile witness is concerned because the court will, you know, will be not wanting to rely to punish a person based on the statements of a hostile witness. You know, though we look at to check the veracity of the witness and, you know, you shake his credibility and still if he stands strong, nothing stops the court from relying on the statements made by you. So thereby, you know, if you turn to be hostile, there is no reason why the court would want to rely on the statement made by you. So that shows how important it is to protect witnesses. So the importance and the need to protect witnesses, as I already told you was first raised in the Besbeck case, the Sahira Habibullah case, and then we have a couple of case loss, you know, wherein the courts have attempted to bring in the discussion or to try to bring in the concept of witness protection. So what a few cases, you know, because I just want to discuss and share with you people the existing situation or the existing laws with regard to, you know, what witness protection is. So one of those case loss is Sakshi versus Union of India, which is a 2004 decision where the court is trying to give a few guidelines, you know, trying to bring out the menace of witnesses turning hostile. You know, because those terminologies are there, that's the reason why I first introduced those terminologies so that we understand 154, we know where, you know, this 154 comes up and what could be the evidentiary value of the statements made by the person. That's why I gave you a throw up on 161, 164, 154, etc. So now Sakshi versus Union of India, there are guidelines which are given, which the court says we need to bring out this menace. Menace of what? A witness turning hostile. You know, so there you find that there was, the court is trying to say that obviously, particularly, you know, in sexual offenses when the victim herself would be the witness also many a times, it is difficult for the witness to speak or for the victim to speak or to undergo the trauma of seeing the body of the accused once again. So there are a few guidelines which has been given by the court, you know, where the court tries to say a screen or some arrangement can be made, where they don't see the face. Then to reduce embarrassment through cross examination, the questions can be put by the accused. You know, instead of asking, you can put it into writing by the presiding officer may take it up and put the question to the witness rather than their accused asking it directly. And that language could be in a non-embarrassing language. Now, in case the victim is a child or if it's a victim of rape, then, you know, there should be sufficient breaks which should be given in between this questioning. So there are quite a few things that the court has told. Then, you know, if I think another landmark judgment which all of us could know is Manusharma's case which is otherwise called the Jessica Lal case. Yes, that's the 2010 case that is Manusharma versus state of NCT, you know. So there again, you know, what the court is trying to say is that according to the statements by the police, you know, when you say they use the word called witness, we generally feel it's during the time of trial that this happens and the concept of witness comes only at the time of trial. You know, the only thing is that we are using them or we are seeing them or we are questioning them during trial. But examination of these people are happening and it is done by the police. So, you know, Manusharma's case was a good case where the court is highlighting one of the defects in the system like not recording of the statements correctly by the police. So, you know, this is a protection of a witness or the witness protection scheme is not something which one functionary of the court needs to take care of just because the magistrate or the court tries to or the prosecution or the defense tries or just the police tries will not work. So it's like the, you know, non-recording of statements correctly by the police is not happening and that's why the retraction of the statements by the prosecution witness is many a times happening due to intimidation, due to inducement, due to manipulation. And then the court looks upon the witness and says, if you are trying to be hostile, it subverts the judicial process. And in such a circumstance, you don't expect the court to be a mute spectator. That's the terminology that Manusharma's case uses to a hostile witness saying that don't expect us to be a mute spectator. You know, there should be an effort which is made by all these functionaries to bring home the truth. So, you know, so that bad is and what can we do about it? All that can happen is under 162, you cross-examine the person, you contradict the witness, that's it. But otherwise, nothing more. So many a times, you know, that is yet not hit, that is not reached people. So I, you know, I wanted to also bring to you another landmark judgment because I'm just touching upon only the landmark judgments. So we spoke about the best bakery case wherein, you know, that was an eye-opener or at least people started realizing that this is a menace to the society. And then I spoke about Jessica, you know, these are all landmark judgments, which even if you tell that the layman might understand. You know, if you say Jessica, yes, they remember it, then see the Delhi case. So that's why I just put up on those cases. But then apart from that, we have the case of Ramesh and others versus state of Karyana, which is a 2016 judgment. You know, then why I wanted to tell that was in fact, I have a printout of that case also, which is trying to read that case, you know. There the court tries to formulate something called as the culture of compromise. You know, that is, that is one of the concepts that the court has looked upon the remission others was a state of Karyana. Okay. So that was in fact, dying declaration, which was being recorded and it was a cruelty case for 98 and all that. So I, in fact, have the case with me. I was just referring to that particular case. So they're also, you know, the court have a courted Zahira Habibullah's case and Sakshi's case because this was a much later case, 2016. So one of the paragraphs I think paragraph 35, you know, the court is bringing out the fear of this witness not being protected. And it says that it is becoming a common phenomenon, almost a regular feature that in criminal cases, witnesses turn hostile. This was the comment that the court made, that the Supreme Court made in this case. You know, and then you have and the court goes on and on and on with many other landmark judgments in this case. If I think if we go through this case and read through, we will get an idea of exactly what, how the courts feel about witnesses need, which needs to be protected or, you know, to curtail hostility. There, you know, there the court is trying to bring up the concept of culture of compromise as one of the significant reasons. Now, the court was trying to say that during this trial, compromise, why can't you compromise? You know, let's compromise. Let's forgive. So the compromise acts as a tool. That's what is told. Compromise acts as a tool in the hands of the defense lawyers and accused for what to pressurize the complainant and the victim to change whatever testimony they have given in a courtroom. You know, the court is discussing about an example of where a, you know, a Dalit woman was gang raped and, you know, the rapist was sent on bail. And when he was sent on bail, he threatened the rape victim again, that if she did not compromise, what would happen? And a year later, she committed suicide, funding this particular pressure. So there, you know, I forgot the name of the case I had quoted. I had looked up on that case as well, wherein the courts have tried to say yes, if you don't have much evidence, you have to, you know, keep the person, you have to give the person a custody. I'm in a bail, but then be very careful when you are giving the bail. You know, you just can't give bail to anybody whom you want. I think the case is state of Bihar versus Raj Vallabh Prasad. Okay, that's also 2016 case. That was again, you know, I read and kept this. This was, I think, almost in paragraph 23 or 24. Okay. So there it says, so the court, you know, in this case is trying to tell you about how a liberal approach, look at that, how a liberal approach should be taken while considering bail applications to the accused person. That's the attitude of the court. So then the court is adding by telling, in a given case, if it is found that there is a possibility of indenting fair trial by the accused, if he's trying to get in between fair trial, if he's released on bail, then in the interest of public or fair trial, fair trial or public interest will outweigh his personal interest. And then to task that balance, the liberty of the person can be curtailed and please don't give him a bail. So that's again, subjective. You know, I'm just trying to bring out these cases. Now, why I quoted this case was because a Dalit woman, when because of the person would have got a bail is how he got the opportunity to go with the culture of compromise. You know, to try and tell, you know, what has to be done? I know, let's compromise. And if you don't compromise, what happened? It happened in, or it ended up in her committing suicide. So, you know, the court in fact tries to say that it changed the public confidence and all that is fine because we get the best courtings if we go through case loss. But what have we done? How far have we come? You know, there is where I know we will have to have a services study again because this was a 2016. Let's not forget the 198th report of the law commission in 2006, you know, try to tell us about how, you know, how, what could be the changes that can be brought in the system for us to have a protection of witnesses. You know, so that was in 2006. But in spite of that, there were not much changes which happened. I think I should, you know, because they were trying to figure out and bring, they tried to categorize witnesses because after the study happened and the law commission came up with all this. They tried, they tried to bring out and say that, you know, in the witness identity protection, which are the three categories of witnesses that can come to that extent they had gone and what kind of protection needs to be given. You know, so it categorizes witnesses has one, you know, a victim witness who is known to the accused, like the case of a rape, where you know the accused. So there the identity of the witness cannot be made because I know who you are. Okay, you are you are the victim from the act that or from the crime that I have done. So it is for the first category that they tried to say is a victim witness who is known to the accused. The second is a victim witness who's not known to the accused, like say the Gujarat case where, you know, there was killing and mob and I don't know who you are. I don't know who saw what I was doing. So that's a second category, victim witnesses not known to the accused. And third, we have witnesses whose identities is not known to the accused. Identity is not known. I might know who you are, but I would not know your identity. So there, you know, they, they went, they gave a very thorough discussion with regard to what kind of protection should be given to these people. So the law commission categorized all of them and said that, you know, as the first category is what is a person, a victim who is known, a victim who is known to the accused. So there you don't need to protect the identity of the victim, but still, you know, the victim may desire that his or her examination in the court may be allowed to be given separately. So there is a study, there is a in-detail law commission study that is given with regard to that. Then they've also come up saying that if it is category two and three, they are victims and witnesses who are not known to the accused. Now there, if there is likelihood, so because the first one mostly I might know you, but then the second and third situations where I don't know you, there's a likelihood of danger to their lives or property or to the lives and properties of their close relatives. In case their identity, you know, kept secret at all stages of a criminal case, investigation, inquiry, trial. So, you know, how do you, so even at this depth, things were discussed with regard to, you know, how, how, what kind of witnesses, what all can be given to them. All these things have been taken care of, all these things have been discussed time and again. But what has been the outcome of this? So there, I would like to take you people to another landmark judgment, I think, which most of y'all would know. I think that should be Mahendra Chawla versus Union of India. Okay, Mahendra Chawla 2018 case. Now, you know, this concept of witness protection, they know there are a lot of seminars and open discussions, you know, which is happening with regard to what best can be done for to protect witnesses, whereby in spite, now what I wanted to tell you is in 2006 we had a law commission report. There were, there were recommendations which were made. We already had the best bakery case. We already had a couple of cases which came even after that. But in spite of that, there was no change. There was no law that came and that's where you have this Mahendra Chawla and others versus Union of India. Where the court, I don't know how many of y'all would have come across this particular case because it is one of those landmark judgments which gives in a witness protection scheme. There is a scheme which is being given by the court and that has been discussed. Now, this case was a PIL wherein, you know, the coverage of the petition had extended to the entire country. Now, here in this, you know, they're presenting the Ministry of Home Affairs had prepared a draft witness protection scheme which is submitted to the court. So that's, that's how we know this case becomes important. That's the witness protection scheme of all the Mahendra Chawla's case. Now, the scheme was prepared by the central government based on the inputs which it had received from the state government as well as the unit territory. And thereby exercising its power under Article 141 and 142 in a sense, the scheme was declared as law. So that's the witness protection scheme right now that we have. Now, before going into it, I just wanted to bring to your notice also a particular bill. Okay, that was a 2020 bill, the victim and witness protection and assistance. That was a private bill which was presented. It did not see the light of the time. But then, you know, I just wanted to, because we are doing this, I just wanted to bring to your notice that there was something called the victim. I meant the victim and witness protection and assistance bill 2020, you know, with regard to how far, how should a victim be protected? What are the conditions or how should the statements be taken care of? Where should she be protected? What protection can be given? What steps have to be taken? So that was a draft bill which was produced under 2020 and asking the states accordingly to make laws. But then that was a private bill which was presented and it did not work out. But however, what we have with us right now is the witness protection scheme which has come through the Mahindra Chawla's case. Now, this particular scheme has in fact attempted to provide a comprehensive, this has been a comprehensive scheme to maintain the witness's faith. You know, that's the most important thing. If you have witnessed, that's, you know, that's where we lack to get the faith of people in this system that we are following, in the system that we rely upon, in the, you know, the faith of a witness in particular to have a faith in the criminal justice system that we have. Because as I told you in the beginning, when I say criminal justice system, it's just not one functionary or two. It is, you know, the criminal justice system as we know, you have functionaries starting from the investigation state, starting from the police, starting from recording of the FIR and until it comes to, you know, the sentencing, it is all, it's all that put together is our criminal justice system. So, you know, even when we give a wrong judgment or even if we give a judgment might be right, but the sentencing policy that you followed might be wrong. The Section 235 pre-approval purpose might be wrong. So, you know, so all that will affect the justice system that we rely upon. So that's the reason, you know, criminal justice system is just not one or two. It's a vast thing. So, there were conditions or there were situations that were discussed in the particular scheme of 2018, which said how far we can maintain faith. So, you know, that is divided into six parts. I think any one of you, I mean, when you all are going to this Mahendra Chawla's case, you can have a look at it. In that, you know, one thing which I wanted to bring to you was generally everything else is there. But, you know, under part one, they have a concept called threat analysis report. You know, it's, you know, because we are talking about witnesses and why they are turning hostile is just now that we told us because of their fear and that the fact that they don't have a faith in the system. So here they have this concept of threat analysis report. Okay, now it's a detailed report which is prepared and submitted by the head of the police in the district who is investigating the case with regard to the seriousness and credibility of the threat perception to the witness. So how much of a threat give you the witness face or his family members face. So it will have specific details about the nature of that threat by the witness. Then, you know, what is the effect that it will have on the life, reputation, property, all these things are being, that's called, that's what you called a threat analysis report. So I just wanted to bring it to you all because you know, that's a concept which generally we would not have come across. So that is called the threat analysis report which is to be submitted by the police again. Then, you know, you have a witness protection application which can be moved by the witness themselves, you know, in a way before a competent authority for seeking a witness protection. So all these are, then you also have a witness protection fund, you know, created for bearing the expenses incurred during the implementation of witness protection order. That is the order wherein you are asking for, you want protection and when you put an application, you know, your places where you can keep, where you can be kept safe, the steps to be taken to ensure your safety. So all these things comes up with a lot of expense. So how far can we go ahead with this? So that has been so there are these definitions which we need to come up across threat analysis report and witness. You know, the witness protection application, the witness protection order. So all this and that like I already told you, you know, the categories is they have also tried to differentiate witnesses as per the threat perception. Okay, that is if there is a threat to the life of the witness, then that is one category. If there is threat which extends to the safety and repetition of the property of the witness orders family, then they are category B. And they also have in the threat is moderate. And you know, it extends to harassment or intimidation. Then it is category C. So that way they have voted it in as category A, B, C, you know, the process, the scheme speaks about what is the process for application. Now, let me tell you that I am not quite confident with regard to how much of these concepts are being put into or being followed. But however, or how many of us will know, you know, something called that there is a witness protection scheme and witnesses are categorized in the model of A, B and C. And the police officer during the time of investigation, if he's trying to understand that there is a chance for a threat that he needs to give a threat analysis report. I got an opportunity to go through the latest codes as well. However, I did not find anything within the code which spoke specifically about witnesses and stuff. But then, you know, probably because we had the scheme. So because it is in, you know, because the scheme is, I mean, sorry, the CRPC speaks about victimology and victim compensation. So that's there. But however, you know, how much is being implemented? We are not very sure about it. Now, I told you about the threat analysis report is because that is to be prepared by the police. Now, the problem with the scheme is already we said we have a fear or people have a fear towards the functionaries of the criminal justice system. So why are you trying to say that they will not have a fear now? Because, you know, it is the police who has to prepare the threat analysis report and stuff. So it automatically the issue of the scheme is, you know, what have been brought out is that there is a fear of police and you can't blame it because there is a lack of adequate strength of the police force. There is an inordinate delay in all the criminal proceedings that are being done. And even the scheme is not, you know, speaking about the specific subject. I mean, the budget allocation, all those things are lagging in the existing scheme. So all these issues are there and we know that the police act is not a change. There are proposals which happened still. We have been following the 1861 Police Act itself. So, you know, this being the situation. So though I just wanted to bring to you all, you know, the right now the present scenario regarding witness protection and how important it is because how important it is has been a throbbing issue for us since 1990s after the West Bakery case. And until now, 2018 is not late. We have all these cases, but then, you know, what has been done. If you look at US and all they have the witness protection, but, you know, they try to shift the witness from one place to altogether another place. The identity of the witness is completely being protected and they have a completely habilitation program there, but which is not a subject matter here because, you know, to what extent would that work for us is a big question mark. That doesn't happen, but otherwise, even the basic protection that has to be given is never being given and that is what all these case laws because I could quote and quote and tell you all only three, four landmark judgments. But then we have a team number of case laws, you know, where the court has always cried upon or where the court has always alerted the public about the issues of if you turn to be hostile, what exactly happens, what happens. So that has been an issue here. Now, you know, we have a case, a US case, Jenison versus Baker. We say that the law should not be seen to sit limp, it should not be limping, you know, and the ones who defy this law should go free. And those who seek its protection should not lose hope. So if you're seeking it, we need to see that, that you don't lose your hope. You know, we should see to it that the person who has denied the law or defied the law should not go scot free. And, you know, law is something which is not to sit lazily, you know, there's something forward that we need to take it up. So that's all that I have to tell you right now. So, you know, within my limited knowledge, I think I have shared with you a few thoughts or at least to give you an overview with regard to the situation of witnesses right now in the country. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. It was a fantastic session. As usual, it was full of knowledge. I was just examining as to whether there's any questions on the YouTube because there's none on the chat box. No, three or four people have liked the sessions on the YouTube. So thank you for sharing your knowledge. The entire team, thank you for sharing your deeper insights on how the witness can be protected, etc. Thank you, everyone. Stay safe, stay blessed. And tomorrow at 6 p.m., Mr. Soma Shekhar, a former district judge from Karnataka would share his knowledge on order 23 of CPC. Do join us.