Protection of a witness in a criminal case is the prime responsibility of the State and the police instead of court, a sessions court here has said while dismissing a plea challenging the magisterial court's order withdrawing security cover of a man.
"It must be kept in mind that the role of courts in providing protection to a witness or complainant is very limited. The prime duty of protection of a witness is that of police and the State.
"Whenever a witness or any citizen gets substantial threat to his life, it is the responsibility of the police and the State to assess if such a threat actually exits. The court cannot take this responsibility on its own shoulders," Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Vinod Kumar said.
While upholding the order of a Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) withdrawing the security cover of a man, a witness in a case, the ASJ said threat assessment was the job of the police.
"The courts must not enter into the question of threat perception because such assessment is purely a police job. Hence, the petitioner is knocking the wrong doors.
"If he is not satisfied with the local police, the only option for him is to approach the higher police authorities for getting security," the judge said.
The judge's observation came on an appeal filed by one Laxman Indoria, an eye witness in a murder case, who had challenged the magisterial court's order and sought police protection fearing threat to his life.
In his plea, Indoria, a Delhi resident, said that he was given security cover by a metropolitan magistrate in 2011 after he had testified in court against two persons, accused in a murder case.
However, it was withdrawn by the ACMM on May 1 this year after the police filed a detailed report assessing threat to petitioner saying that allegations made by Indoria were not substantiated, therefore, the security cover provided to him was requested to be withdrawn, he said.
