Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Lok Sabha Debates

Motion For Consideration Of The Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2005, As Passed By ... on 22 December, 2005

> Title : Motion for consideration of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2005, as passed by Rajya Sabha (Bill passed).

 

MR. CHAIRMAN : Now, we shall take up the legislative business, Item No.30, Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2005.

THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS (SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL): Sir, I beg to move:

“That the Bill further to amend the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as passed by Rajya Sabha, be taken into consideration. ”               Sir, this Bill seeks to amend the Indian Penal Code, the Criminal Procedure Code and the Indian Evidence Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you amending all the three statutes by this Bill?

SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL: We are trying to amend certain sections of these statutes by moving this Bill and getting this Bill passed. It seeks to introduce a new Section in the Indian Penal Code. That new section is recognized as Section 195A.

            The Indian Penal Code provides that a person who gives false evidence can be punished but a person who induces another person to give false evidence or threatens another person to give false evidence cannot be punished under the existing Indian Penal Code. This clause provides for punishment, which can be awarded, to a person who induces another person to give false evidence or threatens another person to give false evidence. The punishment provided is seven years imprisonment but if it is found that a person has been sentenced to life because of the false evidence given, the inducer or a person threatening can also be given the same kind of punishment[m36] . Not only seven years punishment can be awarded but also life imprisonment can be imposed on him. Clause 195(a) provides this.

            Sir, there is a provision that when a witness gives false evidence or produces a false document, he can be prosecuted. But the application for prosecuting him is required to be given by the judge himself and by no one else. It was very difficult for the judge who had to decide the cases to go to other courts and file the complaints and appear in the courts and things like that. We are now providing that the judge can file the complaint or he can authorize any other officer to file the complaint. This is a provision which facilitates prosecuting the witnesses giving false evidences. Now, this is another provision.

            This Bill seeks to introduce Chapter 21(a) in the Criminal Procedure Code to provide for plea-bargaining. What is plea-bargaining? This is a new provision that we are introducing in the Criminal Procedure Code. Plea-bargaining is practised  in other countries. Plea-bargaining is something more stringent than the provision provided in the Criminal Procedure Code for compounding the offence. And it is less stringent than the provisions provided in the Criminal Procedure Code for sentencing and punishing the accused person. This is a route followed in between these two extreme positions. When a case is filed in a court, there are certain provisions, certain kinds of cases that can be compounded. The accused and the complainant can be allowed to compound these cases; compounding is allowed. There are certain cases in which the permission of the court is required to compound the cases. And once the compounding is allowed when the compromise is allowed between the accused and the complainant, the accused is treated as acquitted. Accused is without any blame and he can go scot-free. By having this provision, that is, provision for plea-bargaining, we are saying that in cases which are of a little more serious nature, when the case is filed in a court of law, the accused person can go to the court and say that I admit the guilt. And he is subject to himself to your judgement under the provision of plea-bargaining. Such an application has to be accompanied by an affidavit and he has to say in the affidavit that he is doing it on his own without being under any pressure or without having been threatened in any manner. Of his free volition, he is doing this. That is what he is to submit in the court. If the court comes to the conclusion that what he is doing is correct then the court can give a notice to the prosecutor. If there is one to the lawyer who is supporting the accused - if the prosecutor is not there - and to the other lawyer also, the court can say that he can discuss this matter outside the court[t37] , and he can compromise in the matter[t38] .

            On [r39] the kind of compromise that could be arrived at, the accused, the complainant, the prosecutor and the defence lawyer could talk to each other outside the court. They could decide what they should do to dispose of the case, to get the case disposed of by the court. In their discretion, they could decide that the victim could be given compensation. They could decide that the accused could be allowed to submit to the court and seek for lenience and things like that. When the matter is presented to the court, the court could accept the kind of agreement arrived at between the parties. The only thing that the court has to do is to see that everything that is being done is being done of free volition and without subjecting them to any kind of pressure. That is the only precaution the court has to take. Once the court comes to the conclusion that they are doing it on their own, without any pressure from any quarter, the court could accept that.

            When this kind of an agreement is arrived at, there are certain other conditions provided. If the minimum punishment is provided in any other law, what is to be done? There are many laws which say that five years’ punishment is the minimum punishment that could be awarded or not less than five years’ punishment has to be awarded. In that case, this plea bargaining provision provides that the court shall allow a punishment which is equal to half of the minimum punishment. So, half of the minimum punishment could be given. In other cases, where the minimum punishment is not provided for, the court could give a punishment which is equal to one-fourth of the punishment. These are the provisions here.

            There are certain kinds of cases in which plea-bargaining is not allowed. What are those cases? If an accused could be punished to death or if it is a matter of very serious nature, such matter is not subject to plea-bargaining. If an accused could be punished for life imprisonment, such a case cannot come to the court for plea-bargaining. If an accused could be punished for more than seven years, the case cannot come to the court for plea-bargaining. If a juvenile offender is involved, the case cannot be treated under plea-bargaining. If there is any economic or social offence involved, such a case cannot be treated under plea-bargaining. These are the conditions under which plea-bargaining is allowed.

            What are the advantages of plea-bargaining? One of the advantages of plea-bargaining is that the victim could be given compensation. This law provides that when they talk to each other compensation could be decided upon by the parties involved. So, the accused would give the compensation and the victim would get the compensation. This is a new concept. Under the old law, under the existing criminal jurisprudence, the concept is to punish the offender. The concept is not to give compensation to the victim but to punish the offender. In recent times, in our country and in other countries and other parts of the world also, the concept of giving compensation to the victim is getting accepted slowly. It is not sufficient to punish an offender. The offender should be punished but that does not give any substantive relief to the victim. That is why, now, the concept of giving compensation to the victim is getting accepted[r40] .

15.00 [R41]  hrs. We have introduced a law very recently, which is the Communal Harmony Law, as we call it, which is a law on prevention of communal violence and compensation to the victims. We have introduced it and it may come up in the next Session or after that for discussion in this House.   We have provided in that, that the victims of the communal violence shall be given compensation.  Compensation by whom?  This compensation can be given by the persons who are responsible for creating the violent situation in that area.  This compensation can be given by the Government or by any other trust or by any other body who is created for this purpose.   In other countries the trusts are created and those trusts are giving compensation to the victims of the violence.    So, it is one of the most important things which provided that the offender should be punished.   

            As is rightly said by the hon. Member who was sitting here– I do not know whether he is here or has gone out – the offender has to be punished.   But that is not sufficient.   The victim has to be compensated and that concept has been accepted.   There are many cases pending in the criminal courts and it has not been possible to dispose them of in time.    Now, with the plea-bargaining, the disposal of the cases will be quicker and dispensation of the criminal justice will also be quicker.  This is what is provided and this is one of the newest concepts, which we are introducing, in the Criminal Jurisprudence. So, there are these two things - plea-bargaining, allow the parties to come together and decide the cases. Second is to provide the compensation to the victims and thereby create a situation in which easier disposal of the cases becomes possible and easier.

            The other provision relates to the witnesses going to the court.  These are the important things.   There are nine clauses and these nine clauses are providing for all these things.   Now, this is an amending Bill. There was a demand made by many hon. Members and by many persons that we should amend the criminal laws in our country in order to make them more comprehensive and more effective.  

            Now, new crimes are becoming visible to us. The cyber crime is becoming visible to us and many new kinds of crimes are becoming visible to us.   The Indian Penal Code or some other existing laws are not capable of meeting the requirements of the present time.   That is why, an attempt is being made to find out what kind of new crimes are becoming visible and as to how to deal with them.   There is a penal law which would be amended, procedural law would be amended as well as the law of evidence would also be amended, to some extent, to meet the new requirements.  This is one of the steps taken in this direction.   We have passed the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill in the last Session, we are passing this Bill in this Session and again we are likely to come before the House asking for the passage of the Bill which will be introduced.   Why are we doing in bits and pieces? … (Interruptions)  This question is sometimes asked from us.

MR. CHAIRMAN  : Has the Law Commission also recommended it?

SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL: This plea-bargaining was suggested by the Law Commission. It was suggested by other Committees which were appointed for that.  The system of plea-bargaining is existing in other countries.  By and large, we are trying to implement the suggestions given by the Law Commission.  But it has not been possible for us to consider all the suggestions together and do it.  If you try to do that, then a long time will be required.   So, we are saying that let us cull out the suggestions which are easy to accept and introduce, and then amend these laws and take up other groups of suggestions, consider them and come back.  So, in order to avoid the delays, we have adopted this method.  Sometimes, people say that `why are you coming like this, a few provisions this time and a few provisions afterwards.   You do not do that[R42]’ .

            But we thought that we should not wait for a long time for all the provisions to be considered and introduced. So, whenever we find that on certain provisions there is an agreement, we are doing it.

            This Bill was introduced in the House. It had gone to the Standing Committee. The Standing Committee had made certain recommendations. We have accepted the recommendations in the Standing Committee. In the other House also, this Bill was discussed. When this Bill was being discussed, a few salutary suggestions were made on the floor of the House of Rajya Sabha by the hon. Members and the Government was in a position to accept those suggestions. Those suggestions were also accepted and I introduced this Bill. In the amended form this Bill has come to this House. I hope this House will accept this Bill and pass this Bill and allow us to have a better kind of Indian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code and the law of evidence.

           

MR. CHAIRMAN  : Motion moved :

“That the Bill further to amend the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as passed by Rajya Sabha, be taken into consideration.” SHRI P.S. GADHAVI  I thank you very much, Sir, for giving me this opportunity. I rise to support this Bill. I would like to mention to the hon. Minister that he has rightly said that our old laws, that is the Indian Penal Code, Indian Evidence Act etc. which are very old, require to be thoroughly amended and he would definitely try to take action on that line.

            Some amendments were made in the Criminal Procedure Code. At the outset I would like to request the hon. Minister that so far as the provisions on plea bargaining are concerned, there seems to be a requirement for giving training to the prosecutors because the prosecutor plays a very important role in this. A notice is required to be given to the prosecutor. We know that there are large number of cases pending in the courts. I think the conviction rate is hardly ten per cent. There are so many reasons for that. I welcome this amendment which has been brought here.

            As you know, our legal system is based upon the Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence which proceeds upon the premise of innocence of the accused and a presumption thereof. Obviously, that premise cannot be questioned. But those who are the victims of the offence, those who are informants, certainly, also have got the right to ensure that those who are culpable must be brought to book. And obviously, the experience in this connection is not very encouraging, which ultimately impulses us to come with one amendment or the other.

            Sir, you would recall that in criminal justice system, there are three components. First is the police, second is the prosecutor and the third is the justice delivery system. In civil law, we have come with alternative dispute redressal mechanism. In civil courts, outside compromise is also allowed. Similarly, these amendments will definitely help to minimise the disposal of the cases.

            The sovereign responsibility cannot, at all, be given to any other authority. What is the position today? We are suffering in terms of policing. We are suffering in terms of proper prosecution and, as a result, the consequence is that proper justice delivery system is not being delivered.

            I am given to understand that the conviction rate is 10 per cent. Please correct me if I am wrong. But, I would certainly like to know from the hon. Minister as to what is the conviction rate in this country. If this is the level of acquittal, then, perhaps, something is seriously amiss which you need to address[krr43] .

            When we are getting the opportunity to discuss these important provisions by way of amending the Code of Criminal Procedure, certain connected and relevant issues can also be focussed upon. I would be grateful if the hon. Home Minister can enlighten on those concerns. What steps are being taken to improve the policing system in this country? What steps are being taken to strengthen the investigative capacity of the police? These levels of acquittals are happening only because the investigation is not proper and, therefore, the prosecution fails. Maybe, the time has come to ensure effective training for policing and investigation. The system of Directorate of Prosecution may be introduced because prosecutors are required to be given proper training. My humble submission to the hon. Minister is to enlighten us on those points.

            Secondly, I would like to make some observations on the plea of bargaining. It is, indeed, a welcome step. I remember, the Law Commission, headed by Mr. Thakkar, had itself recommended as to why plea of bargaining should be included. I would like to quote the reasons as to why the Law Commission, headed by Mr. Thakkar, in its 142nd Report talked about plea of bargaining. It has given five reasons and they are very interesting. “When most people who are arrested are guilty anyway, then why should one bother about the trial?” This was the first reason given. The second one was that public money should not be wasted. The third one that they have suggested was plea-bargaining as a way of compromise. Both sides give a little and gain a little. The fourth one was that trial consumes time and cost. The fifth one was that both sides should avail it.

            Based on the Thakkar Commission’s Report, the plea-bargaining has been provided for and it is a welcome thing. That will definitely help the victims also. What is actually happening is that the poor victims are always suffering. When a poor man who has been punished for committing murder is acquitted, his poor family does not get anything. In this amendment, you have made a provision to pay compensation. Compensation will give some solace to the person who is a victim. My humble submission is that there is a need to bring in comprehensive amendments in the Code of Criminal Procedure, Evidence Act and the Indian Penal Code because cyber crimes and new cases are coming up. I would request the hon. Minister to bring in comprehensive amendments concerning the criminal system.

            You have made mention about experts’ evidence in counterfeit currency cases. Till now, only the experts from the Nasik Printing Press are allowed to give evidence. Now, when you have brought an amendment that other experts or experts from the Forensic Science Laboratory can also give evidence, I would like to point out that much requires to be done in our forensic laboratories. In many parts of our country, we do not have technologically developed modern forensic laboratories with the result that the cases are getting delayed. When a matter is referred to the forensic laboratories, it takes many, many months. My suggestion is that at the district level, at the regional level, we must have good forensic laboratories.

            Another point that I would like to make is that the police are taking statements, those statements are unsigned and with the result, many witnesses turn hostile in the court.

15.14 hrs.                  (Shri Giridhar Gamang in the Chair)             I also agree that according to article 21, we cannot force anybody to give evidence against himself. But here is a case where the despositions are recorded by the police under section 161, which are unsigned. My submission is that those recorded statements are to be immediately verified by the higher officers or by persons who have magisterial powers[R44]  or the persons who have got the right to administer the oath. In that case, if those things are done, then there will be little chances for people to go hostile. Many times, the police also plays a very crucial role.  If they want to have any conspiracy against anybody, then they can prepare a statement in the manner and way which they like. These statements are submitted in Court as a diary. We have got the experience, the police are changing statements. They can do and undo any things. You can consider all this under section 161. When the statements given to the Police are unsigned, they are to be verified by the higher officer or by the magistrate as early as possible in a time bound manner.

            With this, I support this Amendment Bill. I would request that comprehensive amendments should be brought in the Criminal Procedure Code, Indian Evidence Act and so on. We have now got the mafia crimes, cyber crimes, communal crimes and so on. It is very essential to have a comprehensive amendment for  these cases.

SHRI S.K. KHARVENTHAN  Sir, I rise to support the Criminal Law (Amendment ) Bill, 2005. This Bill is for amending the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1973 and the Indian Evidence Act of 1872.

            This Bill was introduced by the then Deputy Prime Minister Shri L.K. Advani on 22nd August, 2003. It was then referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on 18th September, 2003. After having 14 sittings, the final Report was prepared on 18th February, 2005. The Report was laid on the Table of both the Houses of Parliament on 2nd March, 2005. The Rajya Sabha passed this Bill on 13th December, 2005. Originally, the amendments were proposed in Sections 161 and 162 and 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. There was an amendment under Section 344. The proposed amendments under Sections 161, 162, 164 and 344 were opposed by so many lawyers of this country. The Bar Council of India and the various State Bar Councils including the Tamil Nadu Bar Council had also opposed it. The Standing Committee of Parliament had also opposed the proposed amendments. I, on behalf of the Tamil Nadu Bar Council and on my own behalf, have submitted a Memorandum to the hon. Minister. I am very much thankful to the hon. Home Minister for safeguarding the interests of the litigants and the interests of the poor claimants in the criminal courts. The proposed amendments, as suggested by the previous Government, talk about taking signature from the witness under sections 162 CrPC and Section 164 Cr. PC talks about recording the statement of the material witness by the magistrates for the offences punishable with seven years imprisonment or more even death penalty. These were affecting the interests of the poor litigants. These provisions were removed. I personally and also on behalf of the lawyers of this country thanking the Home Minister for removal of these anti-public amendments.

 I welcome the proposed amendment about plea bargaining. There is a new Chapter introduced from Section 265A to 265J under plea bargaining. Plea bargaining is successful in the United States of America. It is a pre-trial negotiations.. Previously, the Indian law does not recognise the concept of plea bargaining. However, Section 206 (1) and (3) of Cr.PC and Section 208 (1) of Motor Vehicles Act enables the accused to plead guilty of petty offences and to pay a small fine[p45] .

It does not involve bargaining between the prosecution and the accused. Section 320 of Cr.P.C., with the permission or without the permission, permits the accused as well as the victim to compromise offences. Even under Section 320 Cr.P.C., only 53 cases are permissible out of 383 offences, to be compounded, with or without permission.

            After an elaborate discussion, the Law Commission recommended in its 142nd Report for plea-bargaining. It is a good proposal and a good amendment brought in by our Government. Even through the plea-bargaining is not a forced one; it is according to the will and wish of the accused.

            According to Section 265 (B), the accused has to first file the application, after the charge is filed before the Magistrate; so, he comes forward to file the application. The court is authorised to hear both the parties. According to Section 265 (G), hearing both the parties is permitted. Section 265 (E)(a) deals with compensation to the victims. There is another provision to safeguard the interests of the accused. Suppose the accused files an application for compounding the cases, under Section 265 (B), under Section 265 (G), it cannot be treated against the accused. It will safeguard the interests of the accused. It is a welcome step brought in by this Government.

            There is another important provision under Section 195 (a). The original Section 195 of the IPC states that giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of offences punishable with imprisonment for life. Now, the provision brought in is clearly stating that ‘threatening or inducing any person’, itself is punishable. So, it is a very good amendment. This Section 195 (a) also tells which could be tried in the court where evidence is given. It is a welcome step.

            With respect to Section 292 Cr.P.C., the cases on counterfeit, coinage, etc.,  there are many cases in the Magistrate’s Court which are pending for want of concerned officers evidence. The present amendment will reduce the delays and the cases could be disposed of early.

            Hence, the amendments brought in by our Government – by our hon. Home Minister – are welcome and I support this Bill wholeheartedly.

SHRIMATI SUSMITA BAURI  Sir, thank you for giving me the opportunity to participate in this debate. I am in support of this Bill.

            There are lakhs of pending cases in different courts of our country – from the highest court to the lowest. Cases are pending for years. According to the National Crime Records Bureau, the number of under-trials in prisons at the end of 2003 was 2,17,659. A majority of them are booked for petty offences. This is a very serious matter. These are under-trials who remain in jails for many years. Many of them might not be proved guilty. Due to the long delays in the legal process, they are to remain in jails. What is the condition of our jails? It is horrible.

            All our jails are over-crowded. The National Human Rights Commission indicates over-crowding of 32.33 per cent in our jails. The situation is really bad. The inmates are subjected to inhuman treatment. There are violations of human rights in every jail in the country. A complete overhaul of the system is needed. Also, there are a number of vacancies of judges existing in various courts. That should be filled up to clear the backlog of cases.

            The Cr.P.C. as it stands today contains, for the purpose of disposal of criminal cases, four procedures of trial namely Summon Procedure, Warrant Procedure, police case and complaint case. There are Summary Procedure of Trial and Session Procedure of Trial. The process of trial of criminal offences as indicated above and contained in the Cr.P.C. are not matching with the huge number of cases pending in the subordinate judiciary, which necessitated the introduction of a separate procedure of trial of offences; and the same process of trial or adjudication of offence has been styled in the Bill, under the caption ‘Plea-Bargaining’[R46] .  It is likely to be inserted in chapter 21A of Cr.P.C.   Just after the process of trial, summary trial begins from 260 to 265 Cr. P.C. The New chapter, as aforesaid, “Plea Bargaining” starts from, 265A to 265L of Cr. P.C. The analysis of these provisions indicated that this separate procedure of trial would be much helpful in the matter of disposal of huge number of criminal cases.  Pending for years together, the plea will be placed under consideration.  If the plea had been given voluntarily, that will be considered separately in camera. In that event, there is no scope of creating pressure upon the accused to obtain plea.  If the plea appears to be voluntary, then subsequent sections of the newly added sections, namely working out a satisfactory disposition of the case will come into play.

It appears that seeking the provision of plea bargaining is the option of the accused. If he seeks the benefit of the section and it is found that the same is voluntary, then the subsequent acts of working out a satisfactory disposition of the case will follow and the case will have its finality.

It will appear from the experience that a good number of cases will be adjudicated as per the procedure laid down. I hope, this special process of trial will be very much helpful to the society as a whole.

            Sir, of course in the Plea Bargaining chapter offences are punishable just below 7 years. It will come under the purview of application of provision. Normally, offences punishable within 7 years under the IPC are tried by the Magistrate of the First Class.   C.G.M. award punishment to the extent of 3 years. Offences to be adjudicated under the process of trial in the Plea Bargaininng process is punishable upto 7 years and it seems Magistrate will adjudicate the same proceeding. If so, in case Magistrate awards conviction for more than three years, he cannot himself pass sentence.  He is to refer the matter to C.G.M. for passing appropriate sentence, which will cause delay. So, amendment of section 29 of Cr. P.C. is required.

            Sir, there was a move by the previous BJP Government to dilute the existing provisions, in the Cr. P.C., relating to the cases of atrocities against women and to make such cases compoundable. Such changes were designed against the rights of women. I thank the Minister for dropping it.

            With regard to compounding of offences, there are apprehensions that this provision could be misused by the rich and powerful. It would go against the interests of the poorer sections.

            Sir, another point that I want to make is related to the protection of witnesses. There are a number of instances where witnesses turn hostile, which ultimately save the guilty, making the rule of law a mockery. In some cases witnesses become untraceable and even physically eliminated. Mostly, in the cases involving rich and influential people, the witnesses turn hostile, be it the Jessica Lal murder case or the BMW case.

            Sir, the case of Zahira Sheikh, the witness in the Best Bakery case, is a fine example. The most recent example is reported from Kerala where in a sex-scandal case, with alleged involvement of a former State Minister, some of the witnesses are reported to have turned hostile. In most cases in which influential people are involved, the witnesses are made to turn hostile by means of coercion and allurement. Hence, it is very essential to give protection to the witnesses. But there is no comprehensive law existing in the country to deal with this issue. 

There are many recommendations from the Law Commission since the year 1958.  But the recommendations mostly related to allowances and facilities to be made available for the witnesses. There is no suggestion of measures for the physical protection of witnesses. It is high time that this aspect is also looked at.  सर, अपनी तरफ से और अपनी पार्टी की तरफ से मैं इस बिल का स्वागत करती हूं। With these words, I conclude my speech.

                                                                                                             

श्री गणेश प्रसाद सिंह महोदय, आपने मुझे दण्ड वधि संशोधन विधेयक, २००३ पर बोलने का अवसर दिया, इसके लिए मैं आपका आभार व्यक्त करता हूँ।

महोदय, मैं आपके माध्यम से और इस सदन के माध्यम से माननीय मंत्री जी का ध्यान आकर्षित कराना चाहता हूँ कि यह जो भारतीय दण्ड प्रक्रिया संहिता है, भारतीय साक्ष्य अधनियम है या भारतीय दण्ड विधान है, ये सभी कानून अंग्रेजों के जमाने के बने हुए हैं और बीच-बीच में जब कभी संशोधन की बात आई तो मामूली धाराओं में कुछ संशोधन किए गए। आप जानते हैं कि इक्के-दुक्के संशोधनों से काम चलने वाला नहीं है। सबसे जटिल समस्या है देश की न्यायिक प्रक्रिया में होने वाला विलम्ब है। न्यायालयों में जो विलम्ब होता है उसके लिए कौन से उपाय किए जाएं, इस पर विचार करने की जरूरत है। खासकर फौजदारी मुकदमों में एक व्यक्ति जवान होता है जब उस पर मुकदमा होता है, लेकिन उस मामले का फैसला तब होता है जब वह बूढ़ा होकर मरने के तुल्य हो जाता है। इसलिए इसके बारे में मेरा सुझाव है कि इसमें व्यापक सुधार करने की आवश्यकता है।

महोदय, इसके अनेक कारण हैं। न्यायालयों में लाखों की संख्या में मुकदमे लम्बित हैं, चाहे वह उच्चतम न्यायालय हो, उच्च न्यायालय हो, सत्र न्यायालय हो या फिर निचले स्तर पर मजिस्ट्रेसी या दण्डाधिकारी के न्यायालय हों। इसके लिए न तो काई कानून बनाया जा रहा है, न कोई संशोधन लाया जा रहा है।इसलिए जनता को त्वरित न्याय दिलाने के लिए इसकी सख्त आवश्यकता है।

महोदय, दूसरी बात मैं यह कहना चाहता हूँ कि न्यायालयों में भी भ्रष्टाचार व्याप्त है, परन्तु इस भ्रष्टाचार को दूर करने के लिए भी सरकार की तरफ से कोई उपाय नहीं किए जा रहे हैं। उसके लिए भी आयोग का गठन किए जाने की आवश्यकता है।

महोदय, ये सारी बातें है और जब तक इन कानूनों में व्यापक रूप से संशोधन नहीं होगा, तब तक इनको दूर कर पाना संभव नहीं है।आप देखेंगे कि दण्ड प्रक्रिया संहिता वर्ष १८६० में बनी थी। बीच में एक बार इसमें वर्ष १९७३ में संशोधन किया गया, फिर इसमें वर्ष २००३ में संशोधन लाया गया और अब पुन: यह संशोधन आया है। यह जो संशोधन आया है वह वर्ष २००३ से संशोधन का जो प्रस्ताव चल रहा था, उसी में कुछ और बातों का जिक्र करके लाया गया है।आप जानते हैं कि जब कोई संज्ञेय अपराध अपराधी करता है तो सबसे पहले वह गवाहों पर हमला बोलता है। जो व्यक्ति गवाहों को डराता-धमकाता है, प्रलोभन देकर साक्ष्य देने से वंचित करता है या फिर यदि कोई व्यक्ति मिथ्या साक्ष्य देता है, उस व्यक्ति को दण्ड देने के लिए इस संशोधन में प्रावधान किया गया है।इस संशोधन के द्वारा धारा १९५(क) में कुछ शब्द जोड़े गए हैं। इसी प्रकार धारा १६१ एवं धारा १६२ का भी संशोधन किया गया है और खासकर इसमें एक प्रविष्टी भी जोड़ी गयी है जिससे सम्बन्धित प्रावधान पहले सेक्शन में था।

महोदय, यह संशोधन विधेयक स्वागत योग्य है और मैं इसका समर्थन करता हूँ लेकिन अन्त में मैं माननीय मंत्री जी से निवेदन करूंगा कि दण्ड प्रक्रिया संहिता, दण्ड विधान और साक्ष्य अधनियम में आज की परिस्थितियों और घटित हो रही घटनाओं को देखते हुए व्यापक रूप से परिवर्तन किए जाने की आवश्यकता है।

इन्हीं शब्दों के साथ मैं आपके प्रति आभार प्रकट करते हुए अपनी बात समाप्त करता हूँ।

 

PROF. K.M. KADER MOHIDEEN Sir, I thank you very much for giving an opportunity to participate in the discussion on the Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2005 moved by the hon. Home Minister.  This Bill should be supported by all. 

            First of all, those who have been giving false evidence all these years are being sought to be punished for the first time. Those who induce or threaten the witnesses are now being punished[r47] . Therefore, it is a welcome feature.

            Sir, another important aspect of this Bill is that it contains the provision of plea-bargaining. The cases in criminal courts and in the civil courts in our country are piling up day in and day out. I would like to suggest three things before this august House. I am not a lawyer, but one amongst the ordinary citizens of this country. As a teacher by profession, I would like to suggest the following three things.

            The cases that are pending in the portals of the courts should be divided into three categories. First, there should be a filtration process. In a country like Singapore, cases are brought daily before the courts. The Magistrate sits in the court, as you are sitting in your Chair. The policemen present an accused before the Magistrate. All the accused are made to stand in a queue. The policemen ask them if they have filed their FIRs or not. The Magistrate asks the accused if he or she had committed an offence. If the accused says that he had committed an offence, then he is immediately given a punishment in the form of a fine or such other thing. Sometimes, if not found guilty, the accused is acquitted also. The case is filtered out in this way.

            Second, if the accused accepts that he or she has committed an offence, then he is given punishment on the spot. Third, if the accused says that he or she had not committed any offence, then he is given the right to employ a lawyer to argue his case. Those cases are taken to the courts. This process of filtering out cases is pursued by  countries like Singapore. Adhering to such a practice would also help reduce piling up of cases in our country as well.

            Another aspect is the elimination process. The plea-bargaining provision indeed fulfils the elimination process. Our hon. Home Minister has said that death sentences, life sentences and in cases of seven years of imprisonment, this provision of plea-bargaining will not apply. Crime is said to be an act against the law of the State. Spiritual leaders define sin as an act against the law of God. Anyone who commits a sin is to be punished by God. Anyone who commits a crime against the law of the land is to be punished by the State. But here, our hon. Home Minister has exempted death sentences from the ambit of plea-bargaining. Plea bargaining is one the most acceptable and most welcome feature of this Bill. Cases of death sentences, life sentences and sentences of imprisonment up to seven years should be brought within the ambit of this plea-bargaining.

            In Arabian countries, where the Islamic law prevails, even in cases of death sentences, the provision of plea-bargaining is in force. In Islamic law, the crime of killing is not against the law of the land, but it is against the interest of the family. In the Middle East courts, in the countries where Islamic law is practised even in respect of death sentences, people who are affected by the murdered person is given compensation[snb48] . The compensation [bru49] given to the affected people is demanded by the affected people themselves. The family members ask for Rs. 20 crore or 20 billion dollars and it is given by the offender.  Such an arrangement is there.  Therefore, plea bargaining has been accepted here.  This plea bargaining should also be extended to all the aspects of death sentence, life sentence and even  in cases related to seven years imprisonment.  This is my humble suggestion.

            Crimes are committed by polluted minds of the people. I would like to appreciate our hon. Home Minister for bringing this Bill.  He is a great humanist.  He wants to reduce the cases that are piling up in the country.  He wants to modernize criminal law of our country. With that motive, he has brought forward this Bill.   In order to minimise the crimes that are happening in the country, we should educate the people.  I am pained to say one point in this great House of Parliament.  Every issue is analysed and discussed.  But ethical education  and spiritual knowledge have to be inculcated in the people.   How to prevent people from committing crimes? This aspect has not been discussed in this House until now.

 Therefore, moral education, ethical code and spiritual aspects of human life should be inculcated in the ordinary minds of the people from their infancy and childhood.  Prevention is better than cure.  That is what people say.  But people who are becoming criminals in the course of time have to be prevented from committing crimes in the very beginning.  It has to be nipped in the bud itself. The country of criminals should be converted into a country of non-criminals, a country of saints and spiritual leaders.  Therefore, people have to be educated in this area.  People are to be imparted spiritual knowledge and moral education.  They should realize the importance of not committing immoral acts in worldly ordinary life.   This Bills aims at preventing the growing criminal minds of the people.  It has to be welcome by all sections of the people. 

            I also want to say one more thing here. If a Muslim commits a crime, he is immediately called a Muslim criminal.  If a Hindu commits a crime, he is called  Hindu criminal and a Sikh committing a crime is called a Sikh criminal. Likewise, they will say that there are Muslim terrorists, Hindu terrorists and Sikh terrorists. Terrorism is anti-humanity.  It is crime against humanity.  One who commits a terrorist act has to be treated as an enemy to humanity.  He should not be called as a Hindu or a Muslim or a Sikh or a Christian terrorist. Religions have nothing to do with crime.  Religions have nothing to do with terrorism.  Therefore, I request everyone in the country, for God’s sake, not to call anyone in the name of religion to which he belongs because he has committed a crime or an act or terrorism in the country. 

            This Bill which has been brought forward by our Home Minister is to minimise the piling up of cases in our country and to minimise the punishment given to the people by plea bargaining[bru50] . It will certainly help the growth of moral life in this country. It will certainly reduce the growth of crime in this country.

            With these words, I conclude and I support the Bill..

                                                                                                                       

SHRI SURESH PRABHAKAR PRABHU Sir, I rise to support the Bill which deals with amending the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Indian Penal Code and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

            At the outset, I would like to say that we need to modernise our laws when we are developing as a nation in which the citizens have a right to live in a manner that is compatible with the other citizens of the rest of the world.

            We have seen that justice delayed is justice denied. In the case of an accused, if justice is delayed for a pretty long time, it amounts to punishment awarded without justice being delivered. Therefore, as a consequence, we have seen that several accused persons are languishing in jails, waiting for punishment to be given.  But it is a punishment that has already been given  to such a person, which is much more than the punishment that would have been awarded to him had justice been delivered to him in time. Therefore, we really need to modernise our system. So, I welcome this provision.

            One of the objectives of this Bill is to dispense with justice in the shortest possible time. But probably the law has to be first passed by the Parliament. I think, probably, we need to look into that system afresh. For example, this Bill was first introduced in Rajya Sabha on 22nd August, 2003, more than two years ago, by the then Deputy Prime Minister. It has taken more than two years for it to come to the Lok Sabha. Hopefully we will pass it today. So, it will become an important law of the land. I, therefore, think that we really need to look into  the time that is required, the time that is consumed in this process for the Bill to be passed  afresh.

            This Bill has several components. I would deal with a few components. First, it tries to deal with the witnesses. Nowadays, the witnesses are coerced, threatened or forced to give evidence in a manner that suits  the person who is an accused. It is something which this Bill deals with. So, this is a very important issue. In fact, it has been highlighted and identified as one of the causes of justice not being delivered in time and delivered in a right manner. Various Law Commissions, various institutions have gone into that aspect. Therefore, this is a welcome amendment. I welcome it.

            The second component deals with the plea-bargaining. This is something which is prevalent in the United States for a pretty long time. In fact, the moment the charges are framed, then the accused has a right to say that probably he would like to go for the  plea bargaining and would go in for a system whereby he pleads guilty and he is awarded a punishment which is less than that. In fact, as the hon. Minister was saying, it will be half of the minimum punishment prescribed in our Indian system or one-fourth if no such minimum punishment is prescribed under any law under which he is now tried.

            I would rather feel that you are confining this plea-bargaining to certain situations and exempting certain punishments, certain accused persons who are undergoing trials for certain punishments and they will not be covered by that. For example,  there is the life imprisonment or punishment for seven years or even for punishment where there is a life sentence.  I think that if you are really going in for a system which is elaborately mentioned in the law, how can it be really practicable? The accused, the Defence Counsel, the Public Prosecutor and all the four of them have to come together and agree  to a particular thing. So, it is a very system which is oil-proof. I think we really need to expand it, not just to this but also, probably, to all possible crimes that may be committed.  Maybe, it is a good beginning. We can start with this and proceed on that. So, as I said earlier, plea bargaining is something which is prevalent in the United States for a very long period of time[R51] . The experiences of that country and many other countries, where it is prevalent, are available to us.  So, this is not that we are making a first time effort.  Therefore, using it and extending it to more than one will be more applicable.

            Thirdly, we are dealing with and which the Minister did not mention, is probably compounding of an offence where the husband or the relatives of the husband could also be subject to that.  You are also considering this now. 

SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL It was the part of the original Bill and in the Rajya Sabha that is deleted.

*m08 SHRI SURESH PRABHAKAR PRABHU   That is why you did not mention it. 

So, Sir, these type of new provisions which are now introduced are really welcome and we really need to do it.  This Indian Evidence Act was first passed by the then Government in 1872 and that is the law today.  So, my suggestion to the Minister would be that if you are really thinking of modernising our legal system, we need not make just piecemeal amendments here and there. We will need to look at it totally afresh and bring about a new law which will be really modern in content and in application. 

Take for example, he mentioned about the new law which the Parliament passed about a few years ago dealing with crimes of digital nature.  Therefore, Sir, if you can bring about a new law completely modern and not just bring about a piecemeal amendment that we are doing now, this will really be helpful to us.  Therefore, I would request the Minister that maybe in next year or year after next, set up a proper commission and ensure that all these laws be brought about and, probably, it can be one single law.  It is because the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Indian Penal Code, the Indian Evidence Act, probably some of these laws can be really integrated into one. You can bring about a new law. So, I really stand to support the Bill. I hope that the Minister would take cognisance of some of the suggestions that we have made.   

 

SHRI B. MAHTAB Thank you Mr. Chairman.  The criminal justice system comprises chiefly the police, the prosecution and the judiciary which is the arm of the State closest to the citizen.  This proximity empowers it to violate the rule of law frequently and brutally. Every time a police officer wrongly arrests or tortures a citizen with impunity, every time a rich or powerful person escapes punishment for a crime by bribing the prosecution and every time a big shot interferes in the criminal justice machinery to secure partisan goals, the ideal is compromised.  The judiciary functions independently and fearlessly.  The rule of law demands an independent police organisation.  It also demands independent prosecution services which should be free from political interference but should be accountable for their actions.  It is said that this Bill, as the hon. Minister mentioned, seeks to amend the Indian Penal Code, the Cr.P.C. and the Indian Evidence Act.  The purpose is to improve upon the existing criminal justice system in the country.  There is huge pendency and that is why we need it.  Three reasons have been given.  First is that there is huge pendency of criminal cases.  Secondly, there is inordinate delay in their disposal. Thirdly, there is very low rate of conviction in cases involving serious crimes.  These are the three main issues which this Bill seeks to address.  The remedies that have proposed are also three, if not four.  Prevention of the evil of witness turning hostile in criminal cases.  Secondly, introduction of the concept of plea-bargaining.  Thirdly, compounding the offence under Section 498(a) IPC which deals with the cruelty to women.      

15.55 hrs.                                          (Mr. Speaker in the Chair) The three acts which are proposed to be amended are considered to be the bulwark of criminal justice system of our country[a52] . 

            The proposed amendments are based on the recommendations contained in 142nd, 154th and 178th Reports of the Law Commission and Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System which was headed by Dr. Justice V.S. Malimath.

            This Bill focuses on three issues, namely, witness turning hostile, plea-bargaining and compounding the offence under Section 498 A of the IPC and taking evidence of scientific experts in cases relating to fake currency.

            I will come to the aspect of witness turning hostile for which correction is to be made in the Indian Penal Code. We all know that criminal justice system is evidence-based. False and fabricated evidence in the court leads to poor rate of conviction in criminal cases. The conviction rate in criminal cases is as low as 10 per cent due to perjury. Perjury is committed by the witness on his or her own volition or under threat or allurement or inducement by the third party. Punishment exists today for the witness who makes false statements under Sections 193 to 196 of the IPC. But there is no punishment for the person who threatens or induces the witness. This is not provided in the IPC. Here, this Bill seeks to make some addition.

            Sir, the Bill proposes to introduce imprisonment for a term up to seven years with a fine or both for the person who threatens or induces the witness to make false evidence. But my point is, existing general provision under Section 344 of Cr. P.C. prescribing summary trial for perjury is found to be grossly inadequate. Thus, to check the witness from turning hostile, summary trial has been provided and a maximum punishment of imprisonment has been extended.

            But the amendment leaves untouched the steps that are to be taken. Here, when evidence is the core issue of criminal justice system, if an allegation is made against someone, a third party, that a person is threatening or inducing or alluring, a specific time should be provided to take evidence of that person. Now there is no scope for that. Will the court direct the police? So, a time frame has to be fixed. I think, that is necessary. The hon. Minister should apprise us on this aspect while replying to the debate             I now come to the second aspect, namely plea-bargaining. This is nothing new in the jurisprudence system in the world. The United States of America has it, but it is a novel idea for us. The Law Commission, in its 154th Report, was of a very strong view that we should have a plea-bargaining system. The Committee on Reforms of Criminal Justice System had also recommended the introduction of plea-bargaining in our country. It is not a replica, as the hon. Minister has also mentioned in his introductory remarks.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Mahtab, we have to start a discussion at 4 o’clock. How long will you take?

SHRI B. MAHTAB : Sir, I will conclude within 10 minutes. I have two or three points to make.

MR. SPEAKER: All right. You may continue your speech later on[k53] .  Now, we will take up Item no. 35.

 

16.00 hrs. SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL: Will the Bill be taken up today or tomorrow?

MR. SPEAKER: We can have it today after this discussion.  It will come at 6 o’clock today unless the discussion collapses earlier.

SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL: With this, I have some other things to do; I have to go. If I am not here, again there will be a problem.

MR. SPEAKER: We will accommodate you later on.  I am sorry.  It is so because we have admitted the discussion.  Hardly we discuss sports. 

… (Interruptions)

SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL: Will discussion under rule 193 have precedence over the Bill?

MR. SPEAKER: That is not so.  The Bill will be passed in this Session. 

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: It seems it will take some time.

… (Interruptions)

MR. SPEAKER: Shri Topdar, please listen.  You need not join issue.

… (Interruptions)

18.44 hrs                   CRIMINAL LAW (AMENDMENT) BILL , 2005 .. Contd.

 

MR. SPEAKER: Now, we go back to Item 30. Mr. Jindal, you will get another turn. Shri Mahtab to continue his speech.

SHRI B. MAHTAB (CUTTACK): On the amendment to the Indian Penal Code, especially on the provision regarding witness turning hostile, I had posed an important query.

18.45 hrs.                  (Shri Devendra Prasad Yadav in the Chair)             The trial cannot proceed without evidence, without investigation into the aspect of inducement, when it comes to the knowledge of the court. My specific question is what steps are there to have investigation and, in such a case, should it be completed within a specific time-frame? There are three other provisions, but I would like to know whether any provision for this purpose has been made in this Bill. To my comprehension, I do not find it because the idea is to minimise the court cases, when you are bringing in the third party into the purview. That is the main intention and that is a good intention. But here the law comes in between. My suggestion would be that some specific time-frame can be made so that we can quickly dispose of the issues, if it arises.

            Now, I come to the second aspect of the Bill, about the plea-bargaining. I have said that it is not a new concept. In criminal jurisprudence in the world, it is not a new concept. It is prevalent in the United States, but for us, it is a new concept, no doubt. The Law Commission, in its 154th Report, had expressed its strong view to have this type of plea-bargaining. The Committee on Reforms on Criminal Justice System headed by Justice Malimath had recommended for introduction of plea-bargaining. It is not a replica, as the hon. Minister mentioned, of the system that is prevalent in the United States of America. Here, it is proposed in this Bill to involve the court as an adjudicator. I do not know whether in any other country the court has been involved as an adjudicator or not between the accused and the prosecutor by providing opportunity to them to decide the quantum of concession mutually and fix a date for hearing thereafter. It is stated in the Bill that the Court has to judge whether the application for plea-bargaining has been made voluntarily or not.

            A problem arises from involving the court and the public prosecutor. Hypothetically, if I may say that the plea-bargaining fails, there is every possibility that the public prosecutor will take advantage of the information he had received while trying to arrive at a settlement. Legally, this is not correct[R54] .

As has been very adequately mentioned in different forums, even in the Standing Committee, in media and other spheres, unless there is an independent Directorate of Prosecution in place as a pre-requisite, this may go against the accused which will be termed as a bad law. Establishment of an independent Directorate of Prosecution was recommended by the Supreme Court in Vineet Narayan case. Here, in this Bill, it has been mentioned in page 3. The Court shall issue notice. The Court shall ensure that the entire process is completed voluntarily. The Court shall issue notice again to the accused and the victim. All this burden is on the Court itself. We say that the Court is already burdened as a number of cases are pending. This is an extra work, non-judicial work or out of Court work. We are bringing in more job to the Court and the Court is burdened with more work. I am unable to understand this. The Court is already badly pressed. If you involve the Court, then I think, the Court will be more burdened if we adopt plea bargaining in this manner. Let us adopt the American system. What is the difficulty in having an out of Court settlement? Instead of involving the Court, I think, it is much better if we go in that process.

            The third aspect is about compounding of offences under Section 498 of the IPC. This was intended to protect women from cruelty of husbands or his relatives with an attempt to provide a chance to the estranged spouse to come together. This is provided through this amendment. This was discussed earlier also in this House. I have no other opinion to this, and the National Commission for Women have said that it will dilute Section 498A. … (Interruptions)

THE MINISTER OF HOME AFFAIRS (SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL): It is not there in the Bill. That provision has been deleted in the Rajya Sabha and we have accepted the demand made by the Commission.

SHRI B. MAHTAB : I come to another aspect. These are mentioned when a point was made about going  in a piecemeal manner. I would just like to draw the attention of the House, and through you, the attention of the hon. Minister towards Section 197 of the Cr.PC. As per this Section, prior sanction of the Government is required for prosecution of public servants. This provision makes a mockery of the ideal of the rule of law. Some people are totally protected unless permission is given, no action can be taken. No prosecution can  take place. We know that a number of instances are there. A lot of time is taken. Sometimes no decision is taken to prosecute some public servants. At times, the Police arrests persons just on the basis of an FIR. If somebody lodges an FIR, the Police goes and arrests the person. In our country, the provision is that a person accused is termed innocent until proved guilty. Why should we give blanket power to the Police to go and arrest the person just by having an FIR? In villages or in urban areas, when respected persons are apprehended, they are called to the police stations and arrested. Can some provision be made where this type of humiliation can be avoided? I also would insist that the Police should be made accountable for all its action.

            I conclude with these words. I want to say that the rule of law demands, as I said earlier, independent police organisation. Independence of police administration is necessary[p55] .

Attempts should be made to achieve that goal. With these words, I conclude.

SHRI AJOY CHAKRABORTY Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Due to time constraints, I will make a brief speech.           

The hon. Minister has brought forward a Bill and placed it before this House for passing. Of course, I have no slightest doubt that we, the Members cutting across political parties, shall pass this Bill unanimously.

            This Bill is brought forward with some aims and objects, and for very cogent reasons. The Statement of Objects and Reasons is very good. One of the objects for amending the IPC as well as the Cr.P.C. is quick disposal of cases. This is very good.

            I want to say that our judicial system was introduced during British regime. We are following that old system and unless and until we totally change it, quick disposal of cases cannot be done. We are following the old system and this system takes a long time. A case is filed before some court and nobody knows when it will be disposed of. From the lower court, it goes to the District Court, from the District Court, it goes to the High Court and some cases go from the High Court to the Supreme Court. This is the judicial system of our country.

            IPC was enacted at the time of the British. According to my information, Lord Macaulay has drafted this IPC. He covered all offences and all the crimes that a person can commit. He considered all the aspects of Indian livelihood, all the aspects of rural problems and all other things. But time is changing.

            Earlier there was a provision in the IPC if a person is killed or murdered by a lethal weapon. But now, the character of crime has changed. So, we need to amend the IPC. A new provision has been substituted for Section 195 (a) of the IPC, regarding false evidence given in the court, or for inducement or threatening or if one is compelled to give false evidence.

MR. CHAIRMAN  : Please conclude within a minute.

SHRI AJOY CHAKRABORTY  Who will threaten the witness or induce the witness or allure the witness? He will certainly be an influential man, who has money and muscle power in the locality[R56] .

19.00 hrs. But this provision is relaxed.  Presiding Officer of the Court can make the complaint and any competent person authorised by the Presiding Officer can lodge the complaint.  My question is, who will take the evidence.  If any witness gives false witness before the Court by inducement or threatening, who will collect the evidence?  Will the complainant collect the evidence or the Presiding Officer as well as the complainant will give a direction to the police to collect evidence? 

I think our Home Minister is a prudent, renowned lawyer also and knows better than me.  I have a little experience as I was a practitioner in the Lower Court.   They have practised in High Court and the Supreme Court.  That is the difference.  We know the basic problems involved in all these things.  The Lower Court lawyers enter into cross examination but the lawyers of the Higher Courts do not enter into cross examination. So, we know the problems.

            An FIR is lodged by somebody before the police station.  As soon as the FIR is lodged, the case starts.  After investigation, a chargesheet has been given before the Court for taking cognizance. The name of the witness in the charge sheet is there.  Some of the witnesses could not be traced out.  Some come before the Court voluntarily saying that they do not know. But the intention of this law and the amendment is very good.  It is acceptable.

            Plea of bargaining is a good idea.  This has already been introduced in some other countries.  In this Bill, which has been brought forward by the hon. Home Minister, a provision has been made for the plea of bargaining.

सभापति महोदय  माननीय सदस्य कृपया बैठे-बैठे न बोलें।

...( व्यवधान)

SHRI AJOY CHAKRABORTY  I hope this good object will frustrate the lawyers also.  They do not advise their clients to go before the Court and confess their guilt.  It is a good object.  In the villages of West Bengal there is a provision of  salishi.  Our opponent political Party and sometime the lawyers also created an uproar in West Bengal with regard to this.  The lawyers will be the financial losers if this salishi Bill is introduced.  This is some sort of a  salishiBill because parties come to a compromise and settle the matter outside the Court and then go to the Court for filing a petition that the matter is settled.  This is a good idea and we welcome it.  This amendment is a good idea.  We welcome it.  Everybody is supporting it.  I also welcome the hon. Home Minister to have brought forward this Bill before the House for its approval.

                                                                                                           

श्री प्रभुनाथ सिंह सभापति महोदय, मैं इस बिल के समर्थन में बोलने के लिए खड़ा हुआ हूं। यह बिल सिर्फ कानूनी ही नहीं है बल्कि मैं इसे व्यावहारिक मानता हूं। गृह मंत्री जी, आप तो वैसे ही व्यावहारिक आदमी हैं। आपने इस बिल में लगभग तीन बिन्दुओं को टच किया है - एक बिन्दु है कि यदि कोई साक्ष्य कहीं गलत बयान दे रहा है और उसकी प्रमाणिकता हो जाती है कि इसका बयान गलत हो रहा है जिससे मुदालत को सजा होने की संभावना है, तो आपके बिल में है कि उस पर भी सजा निर्धारित की VÉÉA[R57]MÉÉÒ ।

दूसरे इस बिल में आपने लिखा है कि यदि कोई साक्षी को धमकी देकर, डरा कर या प्रलोभन देकर साक्ष्य दिलवाना चाहे तो उस पर कार्रवाई की जायेगी। उसके लिए आपने सजा भी निर्धारित की है। तीसरा प्वाइंट यह है कि यदि किसी भी मामले में आदमी कम्प्रोमाइज करना चाहता है तो न्यायालय को आवेदन देकर वह कम्प्रोमाइज कर सकता है। यह बहुत ही अच्छी बात है।

सभापति महोदय, मैं आपके माध्यम से माननीय मंत्री जी का ध्यान दो-तीन बिन्दुओं की तरफ दिलाना चाहूंगा। मेरी समझ में दो-तीन बिन्दु ऐसे हैं जिन पर गृह मंत्री जी ने ध्यान नहीं दिया। अगर आपको लगे कि हमारी बातों में सच्चाई या दम है तो हम चाहेंगे कि आप इसे जरूर बिल में शामिल करें।

सभापति महोदय, जब मुकदमे होते हैं तो उसमें गवाही देने की एक परम्परा है। हमारा कहना है क आप एक बार जेल में जाकर निरीक्षण करें। आप देखेंगे कि जेल में जितने दोषी हैं, उससे ज्यादा वहां निर्दोषों की संख्या होती है। इसका कारण यह है कि गांव में कटुतावश मुकदमे होते हैं। वे मुकदमे सत्य पर आधारित नहीं होते। अगर घटना सत्य होती है तो अभियुक्त का नाम गलत होता है। खासकर दो-तीन तरह के मुकदमे तो बिल्कुल ही असत्य हुआ करते हैं। उदाहरण के लिए हम आपको बताना चाहेंगे कि इस समय गांव और शहर में डॉवरी केस काफी चल रहा है। सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने इस पर कई बार कई तरह की टिप्पणियां दी हैं। सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कहा है कि सात वर्ष के अंदर अगर विवाहिता लड़की की मृत्यु होती है तो उस पर किसी साक्ष्य की जरूरत नहीं है। उसके पति को इस मुकदमे में दोषी मान लिया जायेगा।

माननीय मंत्री जी, हम आपको बताना चाहते हैं कि गरीब प्रांत के लोग दिल्ली, गुजरात, मुम्बई, कोलकाता जैसे शहरों में १५००, २००० और २५०० में नौकरी करते हैं। जब किसी की शादी होती है तोदुल्हन अपने पति के साथ रहना चाहती है। वह चाहती है कि मैं भी मुम्बई और दिल्ली में अपने पति के साथ रहूं लेकिन साधन के अभाव में वह अपने पति के साथ नहीं रह पाती। अब लड़कियां सेंटीमेंटल होती है। दो-तीन महीने बीतने के बाद वह गुस्से में आकर सूसाइड कर लेती हैं। उसके बाद लड़की के घर वाले मुकदमा कर देते हैं कि लड़के वालों ने हमसे इतना दहेज मांगा था। हमने दहेज नहीं दिया इसलिए इन्होंने हमारी लड़की की हत्या कर दी। अब मुकदमे में पूरे परिवार का नाम आ जाता है। अगर उस परिवार मे कुंवारी लड़की है तो उसका नाम भी मुकदमे में आ जाता है। हमारे यहां का कानून भी इस तरह का है कि ऐसे केसों में जमानत होने की संभावनाकम ही होती है। अब कुंवारी लड़की भी जेल में पड़ी रहती है क्योंकि उसकी भी जमानत नहीं होती। उच्च न्यायालय भी उसकी जमानत की अर्जी को खारिज कर देती है। इस तरह से यह गलत मुकदमे का आधार बनता है।

सभापति महोदय, हम आपसे कहना चाहते हैं कि एक तरफ हम भावना में बहकर कहते हैं कि हत्या हो रही है, तो इस पर कठोर कार्रवाई होनी चाहिए जबकि दूसरी तरफ हम जितने काले कानून बनाते हैं, उतना ही उनका दुरुपयोग होता है। मैं मंत्री जी से निवेदन करना चाहूंगा कि अगर मुकदमे झूठी गवाही पर चल रहे हैं और उसमें किसी व्यक्ति को सजा हो जाती है तो यह उसके साथ भारी अन्याय होता है। इसी तरह धारा ३०२ या ३०७ की घटना में किसी व्यक्ति को गवाह का नाम नहीं मिलता और गांव मे किसी आदमी का कोई दुश्मन है, तो वह आदमी उनसे कहता है कि मै आपके पक्ष में गवाही दे दूंगा लेकिन फलां-फलां व्यक्ति का नाम भी आप इस केस में डाल दीजिए। इस तरह लोग गवाह बन जाते हैं और गवाही भी हो जाती है। न्यायालय से उस व्यक्ति को सजा भी हो जाती है जबकि घटना से उसका कोई ताल्लुक नहीं होता।

अब गांव में हरिजनों के संबंध में मुकदमा होता है। था। वैसे भी गांव में हरिजन के साथ किसी का विवाद कम ही होता है। आपसी तनाव, आपसी विवाद अधिकतर सम्पन्न लोगों में ही होता है। अब सम्पन्न लोग एक जाति में नहीं हैं, सभी जातियों में सम्पन्न लोग हैं। उनके यहां मजदूरी करने वाला हरिजन होता है। यदि उन लोगों में आपस में विवाद होता है तो वे उस हरिजन को लेकर मुकदमा करवा देते हैं और अपने दो लोगों को गवाह बनाकर गवाही भी दिलवा देते हैं। पुलिस चार्जशीट भी कर देती है। न्यायालय में जब वे लोग जाते हैं तो उनको सजा भी हो जाती है।

अब आपने इस बिल में कहा कि जबरन गवाही देने या गलत गवाही देने वाले को सजा होगी - हम आपसे निवेदन करना चाहेंगे कि इन्वेस्टीगेशन करने वाली एजेंसी जब मामले को इन्वेस्टीगेट करती है तो उसकी भूमिका पर भी आपको गौर करना चाहिए। पुलिस के यहां कोई भी व्यक्ति लखित बयान नहीं देता, बल्क जुबानीबयान देता है[r58] ।

[R59]  जहां पुलिस जाती है, अगर कहीं किसी से प्रभावित हो गई और किसी का विरोध अगर उसे करना है, वह मानसिक रूप से तैयार हो गया, चाहे प्रभाव का जो भी कारण हो, इसमें हम नहीं कहते हैं कि पैसे की बदौलत यह हुआ है, प्रभाव कई कारणों से हो सकते हैं। किसी कारण से अगर पुलिस प्रभावित हो गई तो वह पूछता है कि आपके पक्ष में कौन-कौन से लोग हैं, उनके बाप का नाम पूछ लेता है, गांव पूछ लेता है और डायरी में वह लिख देता है कि हमने इनका बयान लिया। फिर वह अपने मन से बनाकर ऐसा बयान लिखेगा कि लगभग उसे सजा की तरफ ही बढ़ा देगा। इस तरह यदि आप यह कहते हैं कि गलत बयानी देने वालों पर कार्रवाई होगी, हम आपसे निवेदन करेंगे कि इंवेस्टीगेशन के समय जो पुलिस के पदाधिकारी इंवेस्टीगेशन करते हैं और किसी प्रभाव में प्रभावित होकर अगर गलत तरीके से डायरी में अंकित करते हैं जिसकी बदौलत किसी को सजा होने की संभावना होती है, उन पर आप क्या कार्रवाई करेंगे ? हम यह जानना चाहते हैं।

अब हम यह नहीं कहते है कि उन्हें आप जेल में भेज दीजिए। हम नहीं कहते हैं कि उन्हें आप बर्खास्त कर दीजिए। कम से कम थोड़ी भी सजा अगर आप निर्धारित करेंगे तो उन्हें भय होगा और वे गलती जानबूझकर नहीं करेंगे। कम से कम इतना कर दीजिए कि यदि वह दरोगा है तो उसे थानेदार बना दीजिए, उसका डिमोशन कर दीजिए। कुछ-न-कुछ उनके लिए भी आप जरूर कुछ सजा निर्धारित कीजिए ताकि निष्पक्ष जांच हो सके।

हम दूसरी बात आपसे कहना चाहते हैं कि आपने गवाह के विषय में तो कह दिया है, लेकिन मुद्दई जो फर्जी बयान देता है, फर्जी बयान के आधार पर, साक्ष्य के आधार पर अगर न्यायालय से निर्णय होता है, अगर अभियुक्त रिहा हो जाता है जो पांच-दस साल तक कोर्ट का चक्कर लगाता रहता है, आप तो मानेंगे कि मुद्दई का बयान गलत था और साक्षी ने गवाही गलत दी थी। वैसी स्थिति में मुद्दई के लिए आपने कौन सा दंड निर्धारित किया है ? चूंकि मुद्दई को तो आप गवाह के रूप में नहीं लेते हैं, मुद्दई के लिए आपने इसमें कोई प्रक्रिया निर्धारित नहीं की है, इसलिए हम आपसे निवेदन करेंगे कि केस का इंवेस्टीगेशऱन करने वाला पदाधिकारी और गलत फर्जी बयान करने वाला व्यक्ति, इन दोनों पर आप इसमें सजा निर्धारित कीजिए कि अगर उनके गलत बयान पर किसी व्यक्ति को अनावश्यक परेशानी होती है तो उन पर भी कार्रवाई होनी चाहिए। आपने कहा है कि जब यह सामने आ जाएगा कि उन्होंने गवाही गलत दी है, हम आपको एक बात बताना चाहते हैं कि पहले न्यायालय में १६४ का बयान मुद्दई के चाहने से हो जाता था, लेकिन सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने एक निर्णय दे दिया कि जब तक पुलिस नही चाहेगी, जब तक किसी व्यक्ति का १६४ में किसी मुकदमे के संदर्भ में बयान दर्ज नहीं होगा, नहीं होता है तो आप कैसे तथ्यों पर निर्धारित करेंगे कि कौन व्यक्ति की गवाही गलत है और कौन व्यक्ति की गवाही सही है। चूंकि गवाही के समय एक ही स्टेज होती है कि जब सी.जी.एम. के यहां मुकदमा चलता है और केस का कॉगनीजेंस ले लिया जाता है तो ट्रॉयल कोर्ट में उस मुकदमे को भेज दिया जाता है। ट्रॉयल कोर्ट में ही उसका साक्ष्य ले लिया जाता है और ट्रॉयल कोर्ट में चाहे सजा हो या रिहा हो, अगर उसे सजा हो गई और अपील में बड़ी अदालत में जाता है, उच्च न्यायालय में जाता है, सर्वोच्च न्यायालय मे जाता है तो वहां पर उसकी गवाही नहीं होती है। वहां जो निचली अदालत में गवाही हो जाती है, उसी गवाही के आधार पर, उन्हीं कागजातों के आधार पर ऊपर की अदालत में उसकी विवेचना की जाती है, निर्णय किया जाता है। इसलिए इसे आप अनिवार्य कर दें कि जब किसी केस में अगर पुलिस आरोप पत्र समर्पित करती है, तो मुद्दई का या साक्ष्य का बयान १६४ में अनिवार्य करें। जब आप अनिवार्य करेंगे तब तो पता चलेगा कि मजिस्ट्रेट के सामने उसने क्या बयान दिया और ट्रॉयल कोर्ट के सामने उसने क्या बयान दिया। उन बयानों में अंतर है कि नहीं है। अगर आप अंतर नहीं समझ पाएंगे तो आप कैसे समझेंगे कि किसने गवाही सही दी है और किसने गवाही गलत दी है। गृह मंत्री जी, हकीकत यह है कि गांवों में अभी भी गरीब तबके के लोग हैं तो कोर्ट में वे पेसे के लिए भी गवाही देते हैं। इससे उनकी रोजी-रोटी भी चलती है। अगर ऐसे गवाह की गवाही से अगर किसी व्यक्ति को न्यायालय से सजा हो जाती है तो वैसी स्थिति में इससे ज्यादा और कोई दुखद घटना नहीं हो सकती। इसलिए इन सब चीजों पर आप विवेचना करें।

सभापति महोदय  कृपया अब आप समाप्त करिए।

*m12 श्री प्रभुनाथ सिंह सभापति जी, हम अपनी बात एक-दो मिनट में ही समाप्त कर रहे हैं। हम आपको तथ्य बता रहे है कि और आपसे निवेदन करना चाहते हैं कि इन सब बिन्दुओं पर आप गंभीरता से विचार करें। हम चाहेंगे कि किसी केस की जांच के पदाधिकारी, केस के मुद्दई और केस मे गलत गवाही देने वाले लोगों पर आप दंड की प्रक्रिया निर्धारित करें क्योंकि आपने साक्ष्य पर तो कर दी है लेकिन मुद्दई और जांच पदाधिकारी पर दंड की प्रक्रिया निर्धारित नहीं की है। अगर आप निर्धारित कर देंगे तो हम समझते हैं कि न्याय प्रक्रिया में सही न्याय पाने वाले लोगों को इससे सुविधा होगी। जहां तक आपने कहा कि न्यायालय में अगर आपसी विचार-विमर्श से निपटारा करना है तो जो आपने कहा है कि एफीडैविट के माध्यम से न्यायालय के सामने आप अपना आवेदन कर सकते हैं। हम मानते हैं कि आपने यह बड़ा सही कदम उठाया है। उससे एक परेशानी हल होने की भी संभावना है लेकिन एक दूसरी शंका बनी रहेगी[R60] ।

 

शंका यह बनी रहेगी कि अगर कोई व्यक्ति न्यायालय में आवेदन करता है, उसके लिए दोनों पार्टीज की बात हो गयी हो और फिर वह पार्टी विपरीत उस बात के विपरीत चली जाए तो न्यायालय के मन में यह शंका होगी कि जानबूझकर दबाव देकर इस तरह का आवेदन दिलवाया गया है। इसलिए इस प्रक्रिया में एक छोटा सा वाक्य शामिल कर देना चाहिए कि जो भी आवेदन आए, वह दोनों के हस्ताक्षर से आए।इससे मैं समझता हूँ कि दोनों के हस्ताक्षर से आने पर इस तरह का कोई नया विवाद नहीं होगा। मुझे भरोसा है कि मैंने जो बातें कही हैं, उन पर आप गंभीरता से विचार करके जांच पदाधिकारी और मुद्दई, चूंकि आपने साक्षी के लिए प्रावधान कर दिया है इसलिए मैं उसके लिए अलग से कुछ नहीं कहना चाहता हूँ, के लिए भी आप दण्ड निर्धारित करते हुए इस बिल को पारित करवाइए और हम तो इसको पारित करवाने के लिए पहले से ही खड़े हैं। मैं एक और निवेदन करना चाहता हूँ, हालांकि वह इस विषय से जुड़ा हुआ नहीं है।

सभापति महोदय  माननीय सदस्य, आपका भाषण समाप्त हो गया है, अब आप अपना स्थान ग्रहण कीजिए।

श्री प्रभुनाथ सिंह महोदय, मैं एक पर्सनल बात कह रहा हूँ, आप भी सुन लीजिए, आपको भी अच्छा लगेगा।

हमने व्यक्तिगत रूप से मिलकर यह निवेदन किया था कि जब अगला सत्र आता है तो जो १६ करोड़ भोजपुरी लोग इस देश में रहते हैं, उनके लिए भोजपुरी वाला बिल लाएं। वे लोग आपकी ओर ध्यान लगाकर देख रहे हैं। उसके बाद हम आपको ले चलेंगे, माला वगैरह पहनाएंगे, इसलिए वह भी काम कर दीजिए।इस बिल को तो हम बिना वोट के पास करवाएंगे।

इसी के साथ मैं अपनी बात समाप्त करता हूँ, आपको बहुत-बहुत धन्यवाद।

श्री अविनाश राय खन्नासभापति महोदय, आपको बहुत-बहुत धन्यवाद देते हुए मैं इस बिल के सम्बन्ध में कुछ क्लेरफिकेशन्स चाहता हूँ ताकि जब यह वधि कार्यान्वित हो तो इसमें किसी तरह से अस्पष्टता न हो, जैसे आपने धारा १९५ के दूसरे पार्ट में यह प्रावधान रखा है :

“And if innocent person is convicted and sentenced in consequence of such false evidence, with death or imprisonment for more than seven years.” मैं इसके बारे में जानना चाहूंगा कि एक केस को डिसाइड करने में, दोषी को सजा दिलवाने में कम से कम पांच-छ: साल लग जाते हैं। सजा हो गयी तो यह कहां से पता चलेगा कि यह स्टेटमेंट धमकी से या दबाव से दिलवाया गया है या नहीं?

दूसरी बात यह है कि मान लीजिए यह पता चल गया कि उसने जो गवाही दी है वह दबाव या अनुचित प्रभाव के अधीन दी है तो जो कन्विक्श्न हुआ है, जो सेन्टेंस दिया गया है उसका क्या होगा? क्या उसे रद्द किया जाएगा? सेकेण्डली आपने जो धारा १९५ में यह जो शब्द जोड़े हैं कि 'Court or any other officer authorised by the court' वह कंप्लेन दे सकता है। यदि यहां पर एक रैंक तय हो जाए तो अच्छा होगा ताकि कल को कोर्ट यह न करे कि अपने स्टेनो को या अपने क्लर्क को यह कह दे कि आप कम्प्लेनर बन जाओ और कल को वह उसकी पैरवी न कर पाए। इसलिए इसमें 'Such officer not below the rank of so and so' यह शब्द जोड़ा जाए।

महोदय, यह जो प्ली ऑफ बारगेनिंग का कांसेप्ट है, एक नया कांसेप्ट है और मैं समझता हूँ कि इसके लिए आपका स्वागत भी होगा। लेकिन इसके बारे में कुछ शंकाएं हैं क्योंकि जिन लोगों ने वधि के क्षेत्र में प्रैक्टिकली काम किया है, वे ही आपको बता सकेंगे कि इसके बारे में क्या शंकाएं हो सकती हैं, जैसे सोशियो-इकोनोमिक फैक्टर को आपने इससे बाहर ही रखा है, लेकिन इस सोशियो-इकोनोमिक की व्याख्या क्या होगी? कल को डिफ्रेंट कोट्र्स के डिफ्रेंट जजमेंट आएंगे और आपका जो इंटेंशन है वह पूरा नहीं होगा।इसलिए अगर इस सोशियो-इकोनोमिक शब्द की परिभाषा इस एक्ट मे डाली दी जाए तो अच्छा होगा। सेकेण्डली आपने यह प्रावधन रखा है कि This Act does not apply to persons who have committed offence against women and children. इसमें एक कठिनाई आएगी। यह एक्ट लोगों को आपस में नजदीक लाने के लिए है, कम्प्रोमाइज करने के लिए है, अगर इसमें यह प्रावधान जोड़ दिया जाए कि अगर वह महिला या बच्चा उसी परिवार से है, जैसे एक पिता ने अपने बेटे का मारा-पीटा जिससे उसे चोट आई और एक नॉन काग्नीजिबल ऑफेंस बन गया तो अगर प्ली ऑफ बारगेनिंग होती है तो उसे कुछ एग्जम्प्शन मिलनी SÉÉÉÊcA[R61] ।

धारा २६५-बी में किस स्टेज पर एप्लीकेशन दे सकता है, क्या यह चार्ज फ्रेम होने से पहले या चार्ज फ्रेम होने के बाद या डयूरिंग पा ट्रायल एट एनी टाइम, अगर यह स्पेसिफाई होगा, तो उससे एप्लीकेशन और एवीडेंस का कोर्ट को ध्यान रहेगा, वरना कंट्रोवर्सी बढ़ जाएगी कि अब तो स्टेटमेंट और एवीडेंस रिकार्ड हो गए, अब प्ली आफ बार्गेनिंग नहीं हो सकती। इसलिए एक स्टेज तय हो जाए, उससे कानून में इम्प्लीमेंट कराने में मुश्किल नहीं होगी।

आपने धारा ३६५-बी में कहा है - After receiving the application under sub-section (1), the Court shall issue notice to the Public Prosecutor or the complainant. इसमें वर्ड "ओर " नहीं होना चाहिए, "एंड " होना चाहिए। मान लो कोर्ट प्रोसिक्यूटर को नोटिस दे दे, कम्प्लेनेंट को मालूम नहीं क्या होने वाला है, अंटिल अनलैस और कम्प्लेनेंट और एक्यूस्ड तीनों इकट्ठा न हो जाएं, यह प्ली आफ बार्गेनिंग का फायदा नहीं हो सकता। इसलिए "ओर " की जगह वर्ड "एंड " हो।

आपने २६५ (४) ए में जो वर्ड लिखा है - “…the Court is satisfied that the application has been filed by the accused voluntarily…” अगर सीआरपीसी पढ़ी जाए तो कोर्ट अपनी सेटिसफैक्शन रिकार्ड करती है, यहां पर ओरेल सेटिसफैक्शन नहीं होनी चाहिए। The Court must record the reason as to how the Court is satisfied with the application voluntarily made. जो २६५-सी में वर्ड है, आपने "विक्टिम " वर्ड यूज किया है। आमतौर पर एक केस में एक से ज्यादा इंजर्ड होते हैं। There may be more than one victim. यहां पर "विक्टिम " और "विक्टिम्स " मान लो चार घायल हुए हैं, कोर्ट एक को बुलाकर आपस में फैसला करा देती है, तब तीनों कहें कि हम फैसला नहीं मानते, तो आपकी सारी एक्सरसाइज खत्म हो जाएगी। इसलिए विक्टिम/विक्टिम्स शब्द लाना चाहिए।

आपने २६५-बी और २६५-के काफी समझ के साथ, काफी मेहनत के साथ इंट्रोडयूस किया है। इसमें एक बात आएगी। मान लो एक कम्प्रोमाइज डेपोजिशन कोर्ट के सामने आ जाए, तो कोर्ट का माइंड बायस्ड हो जाता है। उसे जानकारी हो जाती है कि उस एक्यूस्ड ने अपना कंफैशन कर लिया, अपनी बात मान ली, तो एक प्रोविजन बनाएं कि जिस कोर्ट में ट्रायल चल रहा है, बार्गेनिंग नहीं होती तो उस कोर्ट से ट्रायल किसी और कोर्ट को चली जाएगी, ताकि उसका माइंड फिर बायस्ड न हो।

आपने २६५-एल में जुविनाइल और चाइल्ड इन दोनों लोगों को डेफिनेशन से बाहर रखा है। अगर एक केस में एक्यूस्ड चाइल्ड भी हो और जुविनाइल भी हो तो क्या एक केस में दो निर्णय हो सकते हैं? जो मेजर हैं, वे उसका बेनफिट लें, जो जुविनाइल हो, चाइल्ड हो, वह बेनफिट न ले इसलिए चाइल्ड और जुविनाइल को इस परिभाषा से बाहर नहीं रखना चाहिए। आपने एक शिडयूल दिया है ऑफेंस का, उसमें फाइन डिफाइन नहीं किया कि कितना हो सकता है। वह फाइन डिफाइन किया जाए।

कोर्ट में जो प्रेक्टिकल डफिकलटी आती है, वह मैं बताना चाहता हूं। पुलिस के पास बहुत काम हैं। पुलिस लॉ एंड ऑर्डर को देखती है, पुलिस ट्रैफिक को देखती है, पुलिस इलेक्शन डयूटी में जाती है, वाआईपी की डयूटी पर जाती है। जो लोग इंवैस्टीगेशन करते हैं, उन्हें इंवैस्टीगेशन के साथ-साथ इन डयूटीज़ को भी करना पड़ता है। जब इंवैस्टीगेशन होता है, तो आई.ओ. दो-दो साल तक कोर्ट में पेश नहीं होता, क्योंकि एक ही रिक्वेस्ट आती है कि वह वीआईपी डयूटी पर है, वह इलेक्शन डयूटी पर गया हुआ है, वह स्पेशल चैकिंग पर गया हुआ है। इसलिए आई.ओ. तब तक नहीं बदला जाए उस थाने से, जब तक वह फाइल, चालान पेश न कर दे और उसका स्टेटमेंट न हो जाए।

मैं एक बात बताना चाहता हूं जो हमारा प्रोसिजर का मिसयूज होता है। मान लो एक मर्डर केस में बेल एप्लीकेशन डिस्टि्रक्ट कोर्ट ने रिजेक्ट कर दी, हाई कोर्ट ने रिजेक्ट कर दी और सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने भी रिजेक्ट कर दी[R62]  ।लेकिन आईओ के पास पावर है कि वह एक एक्यूज की बेल करवा सकता है। कानून में प्रावधान है कि अगर ९० दिन तक एक्यूज का चालान पेश नहीं किया जाता है तो एक्यूज का राइट है कि उसे बेल-आउट किया जाए। सुप्रीम कोर्ट तक बेल रिजैक्ट हुई हो, लेकिन एक आईओ को मैनेज कर लो तो एक्यूज बेल ले सकता है। इसलिए ऐसे आईओज के खिलाफ भी सख्त कार्रवाई होनी चाहिए।

मान्यवर, मैं आपसे एक टैक्निकल पाइंट और जानना चाहता हूं। एवीडेंस की बात आपने की है। एवीडेंस दो प्रकार के होते हैं - एक तो ऑरल एवीडेंस और एक डाक्युमेट्री एवीडेंस होता है, जो एक्सपर्ट के द्वारा आता है। मान लो कि एक डाक्टर मैडीकल लीगल रिपोर्ट देता है, एक्यूज सीएमओ को कहता है कि बोर्ड बैठा दो, उसके ऊपर बोर्ड बैठता है। मान लो कि बोर्ड की ओपनियन में अंतर आ गया। पहले डाक्टर ने गलत बोला तो क्या यह कानून उसके ऊपर भी लागू होगा? इस बारे में यह साइलेंट है क्योंकि उनकी स्टेटमेंट नहीं होती है, वे सिर्फ ओपनियन देते हैं। पैसे लेकर डाक्टर्स एमएलआर देते हैं। बोर्ड का फैसला दूसरा आता है और डाक्टर की ओपनियन दूसरी आती है तो आप कैसे करेंगे?

इसी प्रकार से कई टैस्ट्स होते हैं जैसे फूड का आवश्यक वस्तु अधनियम के अंतर्गत टैस्ट होता है, एक्यूज के पास राइट है to get the second sample tested from the laboratory. तो दो कंट्राडिक्ट्री रिपोट्र्स आ जाती हैं। एक रिपोर्ट जिस पर पुलिस ने रिलाई किया और दूसरी रिपोर्ट जिस पर एक्यूज ने रिलाई किया। अगर ये कंट्राडिक्ट्री रिपोट्र्स आईं तो क्या सैक्शन १९५ उनपर एप्लाई होगा? These questions need reply. They need clarity.  पहले जजमेंट हाईकोर्ट की आयेगी, फिर सुप्रीमकोर्ट की आएगी, फिर केस सैटल होगा। तब तक यह जो एक्ट आप लाए हैं उसकी मंशा पूरी नहीं होगी। इन पाइंट्स को अभी क्लीयर कर दिया जाए, ताकि इम्प्लीमेंट करने में मुश्किल न आये।

आखिर में मैं एक बात और कहना चाहूंगा कि कानून के हिसाब से पुलिस और ज्युडशियरी दोनों को हमें तैयार करना होगा, दोनों की सोच को बदलना होगा, दोनों को मॉडर्न टैक्नोलॉजी देनी होगी। उदाहरण के तौर पर मान लो कि दफा ३०४(ए) का केस है जिसमें दो साल की सजा है। मान लो कि दिल्ली के आदमी का गुवहाटी में एक्सीडेंट हुआ तो उसे हर पेशी पर वहां जाना पड़ेगा। सजा दो साल है लेकिन उसका इतना नुकसान हो जाएगा कि वह सारी उम्र भूल नहीं सकता है। कंपाउंडेबल ऑफेंस है, सजा दो साल है या ऑफेंस नॉन-कंपाउंडेबल है तो इसको भी रिव्यू करके एक्सीडेंटल केसेज को भी इस प्ली ऑफ बारगेनिंग में लाया जाए।

DR. SEBASTIAN PAUL Sir, I welcome this Criminal Law Amendment Bill which in fact is a three in one piece amending the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act.  There is no need to go further deep into the Bill because there is almost unanimity in accepting the provisions of the Amendment Bill.  Our criminal administration system is undergoing a sea change with the introduction of a new concept, that is, the concept of plea-bargaining.  Plea-bargaining is a new concept in India which in fact is imported from the United States but with drastic changes.  I think the plea-bargaining adopted by us is more effective than the one being practised in the United States.  There is strict judicial control in the Indian system.  It will greatly enable the courts to clear the arrears of cases. A perennial bane of the Indian judiciary is the never-ending arrears of cases.  Our judiciary is suffering from some sort of a docket explosion.  So, with the introduction of this system, a majority of minor offences which attract punishment of less than seven years imprisonment can be settled out of court under strict judicial surveillance and control[a63] .        

            But at the same time, I have to give a caveat because we cannot believe our police totally. In various offences, the police can extract confession and produce a person before the court for plea-bargaining. The case can be closed at that stage and the real culprit will go scot-free. In other words, this is a perfect system and through plea-bargaining we are introducing another great concept in victimology, that is, to compensate the victims, apart from giving punishment to the accused or the offender.

            So, in all these respects, I have to welcome this move. This amendment will greatly modify our criminal administrative system and I hope our lower judicial officers will make use of these provisions to clear arrears of cases. Let us hope that with this and many more amendments to come, we would provide a more clean, just and equitable justice system in the country.

PROF. M. RAMADASS Mr. Chairman, Sir, I rise to support the Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2005 because the objects of this Bill are consistent with the legal requirements of the country today and I congratulate the hon. Home Minister for bringing out very simplified amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code. Some time ago, when the Home Minister brought certain changes in the Criminal Procedure Code, there was a lot of hue and cry in the country and the whole legal world was against those amendments. We should appreciate the Home Minister for responding to all those objections of the legal world and now bringing out a very simplified Bill which will go a small way to correct some of the evils that are bedevilling the criminal judicial system in the country.

            Sir, we cannot expect for the moon today, we cannot expect a perfect world and a perfect judicial system. We will have to go step-by-step. It is an evolving society. We will have to make amendments to the system and try to improve the life and liberty of the people in the society. So, in that context, when we look at the amendments, there are four in kind. These try to remedy the deficiencies afflicting the existing criminal judicial system.

            As you are aware, one of the important aspects of the judicial system is the crux of the evidence provided by the witnesses and because of the witnesses turning hostile, there is no fair and reliable system for delivery of justice to the people. Another criticism about the judicial system is that a large number of cases are pending in courts. Neither the accused nor the victims get justice and justice delayed is justice denied. This is a far cry that we get everywhere in our country about the judicial system.

            Sir, after globalisation has started in our country, there are a lot of cases of fake currency notes and the cases relating to this also are not being dealt with properly because of absence of expert witnesses. Then, finally we have the matrimonial problems and these also bring about a social evil in the society. So, these four defects are sought to be remedied by this Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill and there are more points which can be said in favour of these four amendments than against them[k64] .

At the same time, I would like to bring it to the notice of the hon. Home Minister that the objective of ‘witness turning hostile’ in the insertion of 195 (a) can be successfully implemented if only the Government is willing to bring about, what is called a Witness Protection Scheme.  It is because today, in the changing world of mafia, in the changing world of gangsterism, nobody is willing to give an honest witness.  If a murderer commits a murder, and anyone who witness it says that he is going to be honest and he is going to the court, and he deposes before the judge, then within 24 hours he will be nowhere and another murder will be committed.  This is the type of system that we are evolving today.  Lawlessness is increasing.  Therefore, unless there is protection to the witness, there is no possibility of bringing more and more effectiveness of these results. However, one salient provision of this is that those who threaten will get an offence which is non-bailable in character and that will bring about more of a stringency in the law. 

            As far as plea bargaining is concerned, there are more advantages to it.  It is a better system than the American system because it is within the protection of the law.  It is not outside the court of settlement. … (Interruptions)

MR. CHAIRMAN : Please conclude.

PROF. M. RAMADASS  : Therefore, plea bargaining is also good.  But, at the same time, here again, there is a requirement that the Government should bring about an institution called Directorate of Prosecution which will be able to bring effective compromise in these cases.  But, at the same time, we should also see whether plea bargaining introduces an element of complacency on the part of the criminals.  They will commit crime; they will go to the court, enter into a compromise – a compromise between three parties, namely, accused, victim, and prosecutor and other people – and then they get themselves released. Again they will commit crime. This should not induce a kind of leniency on the part of the criminals.  Therefore, I would say that it should be there and the entire criminal system can be re-hauled or overhauled and it can be perfected if only we have a perfect police system and public prosecution system.  Police reforms must come.  Therefore, merely by bringing these amendments, we would not be able to perfect the system. Of course, we are not pleading for perfection anywhere.  Absolute perfection is not possible.  Only a relative perfection is possible, and to that extent, to that objective, this Bill will be a milestone.  Therefore, I wholeheartedly support the Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill.

   

प्रो. रासा सिंह रावत माननीय सभापति महोदय, मैं माननीय गृह मंत्री द्वारा प्रस्तुत किए गए दंड वधि (संशोधन) अधनियम, २००५ का स्वागत करता हूं। इसके माध्यम से आई.पी.सी. के अन्तर्गत भारतीय दंड संहिता, दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता, १९७३ तथा भारतीय साक्ष्य अधनियम, १८७२ में संशोधन किए जा रहे हैं। मैं समझता हूं कि अब तक हमारी न्याय प्रणाली में कुछ ऐसी कमजोरियां थीं जो दीमक बनकर न्यायिक प्रणाली को नष्ट करने पर उतारू थीं, उन कमजोरियों की तरफ सरकार का ध्यान गया है। इस बिल में उन्हें दूर करने का प्रयास किया गया है।

हमारे देश में आपराधिक क्षेत्र में, चाहे क्रमिनल मुकदमे हों या सविल हों, इनका अंबार बहुत बढ़ गया है। गृह मंत्री जी यहां विराजमान हैं, वधि मंत्रालय और गृह मंत्रालय, दोनों इस बारे में गंभीरता से सोचें कि मुकदमों का अंबार किस प्रकार से निपटाया जाए, तो उत्तम होगा। लेकिन अभी जो प्रयास किया गया है उस प्रयास का स्वागत किया जाना चाहिए ताकि आपराधिक मामलों में निर्णय त्वरित गति से हो और कानून का सरलीकरण हो। लोग बिना किसी दबाव के, लालच के साक्ष्य देने के लिए सामने आएंगे और मुकदमों का निपटान सही तरीके से हो सकेगा। इस बिल में झूठी गवाही देने वालों के खिलाफ कार्रवाई का जो प्रावधान किया गया है, मैं समझता हूं यह बहुत अच्छी बात है। आज मानवीय मूल्यों का ह्रस होता जा रहा है, इसके कारण लोग लालच में आ कर, धनबल, बाहुबल, दादागिरी या माफियागिरी से डरकर मनगढ़ंत आरोप लगाते हैं या गवाहियां देते हैं, ऐसे लोगों को सजा देने का प्रावधान इसमें किया गया है, मैं इसका स्वागत करता cÚÆ[sk65] ।

  इसके साथ-साथजो बारगेनिंग चैप्टर बढ़ायागया है, यह बहुत ही अच्छा है। आज दुनियाभर में मुकदमेबाज़ी चलती रहती है और तारीख पर तारीख पड़ती रहती हैं। उसके स्थान पर अगर दोनों पार्टियां सहमत हों, पुलिस की रिपोर्ट के आधार पर न्यायाधीश के संरक्षण में समझौता हो जाये तो उससे बढ़कर कोई अच्छी चीज नहीं होती है। इससे समाज के अंदर सौह्रर्दपूर्ण वातावरण पैदा होगा। Justice delayed is justice denied. अगर न्याय में विलम्ब किया जाता है तो न्याय से इनकार किया जाता है। इस लिये मुकदमे का त्वरित गति से निर्णय हो, इसके लिये कानून का सरलीकरण अत्यंत आवश्यक है जिसका इस बिल के माध्यम से प्रयास किया गया. है।

सभापति महोदय, चूंकि समय कम है, इसलिये मैं कानून की बारीकियो में न जाकर आपके आदेश का पालन करते हुये इस बिल का स्वागत करता हूं और आशा करता हूं क आगे भी इसी द्ृष्टि से इसी पथ पर वधि एवं गृह मंत्रालय आगे बढ़ेगा ताकि मुकदमों की संख्या कम हो, अपराधियों पर नियंत्रण हो और प्रजा को सुख मिलेगा जिसके हम हमेशा प्रबल पक्षधर हैं।

SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL Sir, I would like to first of all thank the hon. Speaker and this House for having facilitated the passage of this Bill today itself by extending the time and making adjustment and helping all of us.

The debate was very enlightening. The hon. Members who spoke, spoke like experienced jurists and lawyers. Most of the points made by them were hitting the nail on the head. They were very, very relevant, and I would like to thank all of them.

There are three points which were made. If we analyse the debate, three points come out of the discussions. One point relates to the witnesses. The second point relates to the plea-bargaining provision, and the third point relates to the general condition prevailing in our country with respect to investigation, disposal of the cases and the criminal jurisprudence. Witnesses should be protected. This is what was suggested by many of the Members who spoke here.

I would like to submit that by amending the Criminal Procedure Code, we have provided that the witnesses would be protected. The previous Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Code, to which some Members objected, which is kept in abeyance, provides that the witnesses should be protected and as to how the witnesses should be protected is provided in that law. If it were not kept in abeyance, it would have helped these people.

Then it was also suggested that there should be a Directorate of Prosecution. It has also been provided. The previous Amendment Bill provided for creating a Directorate of Prosecution. That is also kept in abeyance. The previous Amendment Bill provided as to how the protection can be given to women witnesses, women victims and women complainants. That is also kept in abeyance only for one clause, which is related to the anticipatory bail. Even if that clause is not there in the Bill, the courts have a right to call the applicants in the court to be present when the judgement is given.

I tried to explain to my colleagues and friends but they did not see the point. That is why, we said, all right you yourself consider it and come back to me and I will see it. That is why, that Bill is kept in abeyance up to this time. But we shall have to do something about that. That Criminal Procedure Code provided that if an accused is kept behind the bar for a period for which he can be sentenced, even without conducting the case he gets an acquittal. He comes out of the jail. That is provided[m66] .

These kinds of salutary provisions also have been kept in abeyance. I would like to request my colleagues to apply their minds to these things and persuade their colleagues, the lawyers also, to see the point. So for one provision in that Bill, the Bill is kept in abeyance. I really feel very sorry about it.

            As far as witnesses are concerned, the hon. Members have made very good points about the witnesses. One of the points that was made by one of the hon. Members sitting on the back Benches related to as to how we will come to the conclusion that the witness has not given a truthful evidence. One thing which I would like to make very clear to the hon. Members here is that Clause 195(a) does not relate to the witness. It relates to a person who is influencing the witness. If a witness goes to the court and gives wrong evidence, he can be punished. It is already provided in the Indian Penal Code and there is a procedure provided for that purpose as to how a witness giving wrong evidence can be punished, and how much punishment can be imposed upon him, is already provided. This Clause 195(a) relates to the punishment which can be imposed upon a person who is inducing or threatening a witness to give wrong evidence in the court of law. It was not there in the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Now, we are trying to introduce it in the IPC and it is saying that seven years imprisonment can be awarded. Again, the matter went to the Standing Committee. The Standing Committee said that supposing there is a murder case and a witness is induced or threatened to give evidence. He goes to the court and gives the evidence. And on the basis of that evidence given, if he is sentenced to death; he is sentenced to life imprisonment; because of his evidence if that kind of sentence is given then will you say that seven years sentence awarded against such persons is sufficient? So, the Standing Committee suggested that if a person is given an imprisonment which is more than seven years, then the same kind of punishment should be imposed upon the person who is inducing or threatening the witness to give wrong evidence. That is why, we accepted this recommendation given by the Standing Committee and that is provided in this Bill. I am very happy that almost all the Members have supported this provision.

            Sir, the most important part of this Bill is plea-bargaining. Now, what is plea-bargaining? I explained that while moving that this Bill be considered; I need not go over that area again. But let us understand that the concept of plea-bargaining has not come from outside only. It is true that in America this is used and it is giving very good dividends to them. But it existed even in India. It is not understood by many of us in the olden criminal jurisprudence.  When a person was offended, when an offence was committed against a person, the offender was not only punished but the victim was also given compensation. For example, two cows were given; a piece of land was given; and a certain amount of money was given. That is plea-bargaining. In the Islamic Law also – yesterday, an hon. Member was speaking from there – now this is accepted. He went to the extent of saying that let plea-bargaining be available in cases in which the murder has taken place and in which case death sentence can be awarded. He went to that extent[t67] .

            In Islamic criminal jurisprudence, plea-bargaining is accepted.

            The point I was trying to make was that this kind of a concept was existing in many parts of the world. It was existing in India. In Islamic jurisprudence, it is existing. In the Western countries also, it exists. So, it is not a new concept. As a matter of fact, we are accepting an old concept.

            There are two points that I would like to explain to the House. The first point is that the delays in the courts would be reduced. The number of cases would be reduced and the disposal of the cases would be speedier. But I may mention, the most important part of plea-bargaining is the compensation which would be given to the victims.

            The jurisprudence which we have been using for many years has helped us to punish the offenders. There are some provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code which could be used by the Judge to give compensation to some victims but those provisions are not strong enough. Generally, in most of the cases, no compensation is given to the victim. Even if a fine is collected from the offender, it is put in the Government coffers rather than used to give compensation to the victim. So, this kind of jurisprudence is getting changed. In India, we are now accepting the concept that it is not sufficient to punish the offender. Punish we must but it is necessary that the victim should be given some relief. If a young man of a family dies, the surviving members should get some compensation. Now, that concept is getting accepted and that concept would get some kind of practical effect through this Bill. I am happy about that more than only the fact that delays would be reduced.

            An hon. Member asked that if the case has ultimately to be decided by the Judge, how would it reduce the delay in the court. We have to understand how the case is conducted in a criminal court in order to understand how the delays could be curtailed. The police investigates, prepares the charge-sheets, and files them in a court of law. Once the charge-sheet is given, if the court is a simple court, the Judicial Magistrate tries that case. It does not go to the Sessions Court. Then, the witnesses receive the notice, they appear in the court, they are examined and cross-examined, arguments take place and then the judgement is given. So, it takes a long time. Calling the witnesses, examining the witnesses, advancing the arguments and getting the judgement takes a long time and because of that delays occur. Sometimes, the witnesses are not available. Supposing a doctor has to be examined and the doctor writes back to the court saying that he is not in a position to attend the court, the Judge adjourns the case to another date and so delays occur. Now, this kind of things are not going to happen any more.

            An hon. Member wanted to understand when the accused would be allowed to go to the court asking for plea-bargaining. The law provides under Section 173 that the moment the charge-sheet is filed by the police in a court of law, the accused could make an application. That application has to be filed with an affidavit because he has to take an oath and state that he is doing it voluntarily and that he is not doing it under any pressure. He has to explain it. Once that is done, the court gives the notice to the prosecutor or the complainant and to the accused or to his lawyer. In some cases, the prosecutor is there; in some other cases, the prosecutor is not there. There are private complaints and there are police cases. When the police case is there, the case goes to the court[r68] .

Then, there is a prosecutor.   But when there is a private complainant, there may not be a prosecutor.   He himself may be there and he may have the assistance of any lawyer to prosecute his case at a later stage.  That is why, we have provided the prosecutor, the complainant, the accused and his lawyer will be allowed to talk to each other and decide as to how the disposal of the case has to be done.   Now, this is provided.   The court does not interfere in it.  After they decide upon what is to be done, the report is given to the court and when the report is given to the court, court examines it.   Why does the court examine it?   The court examines it for two purposes.   The court wants to know whether it is done voluntarily or not. 

            Secondly, the accused is not allowed to go scot-free in all cases.   In some cases, he is allowed to go back and remain on probation and in some cases, some sentence has to be passed.   The main thing which the court will do is to see whether this agreement is arrived at out of free will of the parties’ concerned or not.   This requires a very short time and this is possible.  We have taken a precaution to see that in murder cases, in cases in which life imprisonment is given or seven years’ imprisonment can be given, the plea-bargaining will not be available.  Then, we have also said that the cases affecting the socio-economic conditions are also not allowed.   So, these are some of the precautions which we have taken.   In my opinion, in the social conditions in which we live, these kinds of precautions are necessary. … (Interruptions)

SHRI KHARABELA SWAIN (BALASORE): Why do you want it in the case of Juvenile Offence?

SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL: It is because the relief given under the Juvenile Offences Act to the accused is much more than the relief given here.  That is why, we have given it.   … (Interruptions)  This is going to help us.  

            One of the arguments advanced was that it would help the rich.   I do not know how it will help the rich.   It is the accused who has to make the application.   If he does not want to make an application, he will not make an application.   I do agree that whenever the compensation is there, it may help, but the accused has to accept it.   In some cases, merely punishing the offender is not sufficient and helping the victim is also necessary.  This is a salutary provision and I think, we should accept it.   Then, there are other provisions which are not very important.  

            In the fake currency cases, only the experts from the Nasik Printing Press were allowed to give the evidence.   Now, it is provided that the experts from the Forensic Laboratories should be allowed to help in this matter.  One of the hon. Members made a suggestion that the Forensic Laboratories should be strengthened and we are giving a lot of money to the Forensic Laboratories also to strengthen them.

            Thirdly, there was a point made that the plea-bargaining application or affidavit is made and ultimately the judge does not accept the plea-bargaining.   What will happen if the accused has already said that he has committed the offence and he is ready to give the compensation?  So, give him a lenient punishment.  Will that go against him?   This is a very important point made and when this important point was discussed, especially from the hon. Prime Minister’s side, they said: “Look if you allow this to be there on the record, he is already convicted and any punishment can be given to him”. That is why, we make a special amendment to the Amendment Bill.   The clause 265 (k) provides that if the plea-bargaining is not accepted by the judge, the material which is before him shall not be used against the accused person[R69] .

20.00 [krr70]    hrs.             Now, this is also specifically provided in the law. So, that kind of an apprehension need not be there.

            The other thing is that the evidence law is also amended. One of the hon. Members did not speak, but he came to me and said – ‘You have not explained this thing; what is this?’ It is on clause 9. The clause 9 says :

“Nothing in this section shall disentitle the person so permitted under sub-section (1), to rely on any part of the evidence of such witness.”               Now, this is an amendment suggested to Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act. It says that if a witness becomes hostile, he can be cross-examined. The question was whether the evidence given by a witness who is declared as hostile shall be reliable or not. Now, it is made very specific by amending the law that if such a witness is there and if he has made a statement wherein a portion of it is reliable and a portion of it is not reliable, then the judge will be allowed to make use of the portion which is reliable and he need not take into account the portion which is not reliable. Now this kind of provision has been made.

            Very good points have been made by some of the hon. Members. Shri Prabhunath Singh spoke like a lawyer. He made so many points. One of the points he made was that – ‘You are providing a punishment for a person who induces or threatens a witness to give wrong evidence. What are you going to do with the Police who is threatening or inducing to give the evidence and preparing the chargesheet?’             The entire criminal jurisprudence that we have today, the entire criminal procedure code that we have today suggests that what the Police does is not the basis, cannot be the basis of conviction. What is stated by the witnesses in the court of law can be the basis. So, all the statements recorded, the statements are made by the witnesses orally. But then the Police is expected to reduce all these statements into writing. But these statements are not signed by the witnesses nor are they signed by the police officers also. But they go to the court as part of the chargesheet and on the basis of such statements which are unsigned, the prosecutor puts the questions to the witnesses and extracts the material from him. That becomes the part of the case before the court and then the defence lawyer is allowed to cross-examine that witness to bring out the statement.

            I tell you that the system of cross-examination is so good and so powerful. I have been saying that you bring any kind of witness, any intelligence witness before me and you tutor him to give false evidence in the court of law; I will get truth from his mouth. I will get the truth from his mouth by cross-examination and it is possible. That is why the system of cross-examination is very powerful. Then the judge has to examine it.

            Today, Shri Prabhunath Singh probably has read the Bill which we have produced here. But this Bill has come in a different form. What has actually originally the Bill suggested was this. It suggested that under Sections 161, 162, 163, 164, these provisions are relevant, the statement shall be recorded by the Police they will be signed by the witnesses, they will be signed by the Police and then they will be introduced in the courts. Under Section 164 they will be recorded by the judge and then signed by the witnesses and signed by the judge and then the statements will be given to them. That was originally provided in the amending Bill[krr71] .

            When this matter went to the Standing Committee, the Standing Committee said: “No, you cannot do that.” What did the Standing Committee say? The Standing Committee said: “Under Section 164, you can go to the judge and get the statement recorded on oath and sign it, but we will not accept the provision which empowers the police to get the signature of the witnesses on that piece of paper because he is in a position to influence him and record a statement and get his signature. And such a statement made by the police will go against the principle of criminal jurisprudence which is that no innocent person should be punished.” श्री प्रभुनाथ सिंह सभापति जी, माननीय मंत्री जी ने जो कहा है, पुलिस जब जांच करती है तो पुलिस चार्जशीट दायर करती है और वही साक्ष्य का नाम लेती है - कारण कि उन्हीं के साक्ष्य को न्यायालय में माना जाता है और साक्ष्य के बाद अगर किसी को निचली अदालत से सजा हो जाती है तो हाई कोर्ट और सुप्रीम कोर्ट तक लड़ते-लड़ते २० वर्ष की उसकी जिंदगी लग जाती है। अगर सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने उसे मुक्त भी कर दिया तो वैसी स्थिति में जो पुलिस ने लिखा है, ये कहते हैं कि पुलिस के साक्ष्य का कोई महत्व नहीं होता है, माननीय मंत्री जी, जब पुलिस को न्यायालय में विटनैस के रूप में कॉल किया जाता है तो डायरी में वह लिखता है। उससे कहलवाया जाता है कि यह जांच आपने की है कि नहीं और जब वह हां कहता है तो उसे विटनैस के रूप में माना जाता है। जब विटनैस के रूप में माना जाता है तो उसे अभियुक्त को भोगना पड़ता है। वैसी स्थिति में अगर ऊंची अदालत से सजा से मुक्त हो जाता है तो इतना तो स्वीकार करना होगा कि पुलिस ने गलत लिखा था और पुलिस ने गलत लिखा था तो उसके लिए आप क्या करेंगे, हम आपसे यह जानना चाहते हैं?

SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL  I will come to that point. I am trying to explain ad it is a very good point you are raising. This point has not been raised only in the House, but it has been raised in the trial courts, in the High Courts and in the Supreme Court also. The Supreme Court have given judgments against the police, especially in U.P Case, the judgement given against the police was very demoralising for the police, and it was a true judgment also. If a police officer is concocting a case, if a police officer is setting up the witness who are not truthful, if the police officer is recording the statement which is not truthful, and if that fact is brought to the notice of the trial judge in the argument or through the cross-examination or the examination, then the courts take cognizance of this fact and the court can ask that the police officer be prosecuted. When a witness gives wrong evidence, court is not directly saying, “You have told this and we are doing it.” Now, even in the case of witness, when wrong evidence is given, it is judged by the judge in different manners. Now, they try to find out how it is different from the evidence given by the other witnesses: what has come out in the examination, cross-examination and re-examination. How has been his demeanour in the court? Was he looking tricky or was he looking reliable? All these things are watched and recorded by the judge and when the court comes to the conclusion that the witness was misleading the court, the court starts proceedings against him. It was made necessary that the court itself had to make the complaint. It is not always possible for the court to give the complaint and then appear in the court, if it is necessary. That is why, it is said that the court can give the complaint through itself or through any authorised person. Now, that kind of provision is made. What is applicable to the witness is applicable to the police also. But while assessing the truthfulness of the evidence of the acts of the police and while assessing the truthfulness of the witnesses, the judges do differentiate because the witness can be related because the witness may come from the same village from which the accused is coming. The police may not be related and the police is also performing the duty. If you demoralise the police to a great extent, it is not possible for the police to collect the evidence and come to the court[R72] .

A question was asked and I am going to say something on that. Why is the conviction rate low? The conviction rate is low because the truthful witnesses do not come forward. If a murder takes place, the witness who is standing there, says that he would not like to get involved. Supposing I go to a court of law and give evidence, these people may ask me.  मुझे मालूम नहीं था, मैं वहां पर नहीं था। You yourself said it and said it very rightly. I have always been asked as to why the persons are acquitted and not convicted. Why is the conviction rate low? And the pet answer that I have been giving is that in almost all cases, if there are ten accused and five accused are real culprits, the other five are just the names because they are related. The result is that the accused who is to be convicted, gets acquitted because five other innocent persons are involved. When the truthful eye witnesses depose and if a good cross-examination lawyer is there, he can extract from that that these five persons are not there. This is the human weakness. These are the realities of life. These are the practical difficulties. That is why, we shall have to consider as to what has to be done. What we are trying to do is not a perfect thing. We are trying to better the situation; we are trying a better kind of law, a better kind of system. Probably, it will help; and probably, in some cases, it will not help. We are not claiming that it is going to help. But just think of the situation in which you are not relying on the Police at all. What will happen then? If you are not relying on the Police, then who will collect the witness, who will file the charge-sheet? How will a judge decide? How will the justice be done to the accused person? And the victim is always a weak person. He is physically weak or financially weak or he is so good that his being good is also treated as a weakness. If some conspiracy takes places, he has an opportunity on which justice has to be done. That is why, this problem is there. You have made a very good point. If you can suggest as to how the Criminal Procedure Code can be amended, we will be very happy to do it. I have applied my mind to this problem and it is not possible to swing from one extreme to the other extreme. This is the problem in dealing with criminal justice. Some people speak as if they are the party, they are supporting the prosecution. Some people speak as if they are supporting the defence in the case. The Judge has to decide it and he has to hear both sides to come to a correct conclusion and come to a judgement. When we are talking about human rights, we will like to reduce the power given to the Police. We will like to see that on a slightest doubt, the man should be released and acquitted. But you think of its impact. Suppose, most of the persons get acquitted. The principles of benefit of doubt and no innocent person should be convicted, are there. These two principles are salutary. They should be there. They are also responsible for seeing that the conviction rate is very low. That is exactly why we shall have to strike a balance.

            A suggestion has been given that we are depending on oral evidence. That is true. In civil matters, we depend on documentary evidence more than in criminal matters. That is why, we are depending on the oral evidence. But we are taking a step in a different direction to collect the evidence in criminal cases also. In criminal cases also, some documentary evidence is given now; the doctors evidence is given and other evidence is given and Panchnama is made. There is a third stage. That is a stage of technological evidence[p73] .

DNA test is there and it is the surest test. If a hair is collected, it can be examined; if a piece of cloth is collected, it can be examined; if footprints are collected, they can be examined. These are technical evidences. Unfortunately, the systems for collecting technical evidence in our country are in the process of development and it has not reached the stage where it should be. That is why, rate of conviction in our country is low. If the rate of conviction is low, it is because along with the real accused, the innocent persons are also involved. The witnesses are not willing to come forward; sometimes, investigating officers are committing mistakes and sometimes, there are situations which really do not help to do justice. There is also reliance on oral evidence and not on technological evidence. If these happen, we will be able to do that.

            This is an attempt to provide a system which will help us to do justice without any delays and do justice in a manner which will help the victims and which will help the real justice to be done to the accused person. I have no hesitation in saying that I would not say that this is the perfect system. I would say that this is a better system; we are trying to provide a better system. We are yet to arrive at a position where the perfect system will be available.

            Once again, I thank the hon. Members for having participated; they have not only participated, but they have stayed in the House up to this time and have shown great interest in the system which we are trying to develop.

SHRI A. KRISHNASWAMY (SRIPERUMBUDUR): I have one clarification to seek.

सभापति महोदय : आपको इतना अच्छा जवाब मिला है।

SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL: I have a Cabinet meeting to attend.

SHRI A. KRISHNASWAMY   From your reply, I understand that if police files a charge sheet, in the plea-bargaining concept, if one gives admission application, it will be admitted. You said that. Does the law permit that an innocent person, without getting any charge sheet, makes an admission?

SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL: Plea-bargaining starts after filing the charge sheet and not before that.  … (Interruptions)

MR. CHAIRMAN : No. Please take your seat. Only two clarifications will be allowed. Shri Mahtab. He will be the last.

… (Interruptions)

SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL Do not worry; the law provides that this will start after the charge sheet is filed. The court is expected to give notice to the accused person, and then only, it starts. … (Interruptions) When you read the law, you will get it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Only one question can be allowed. Mr. Mahtab.

SHRI B. MAHTAB Hon. Home Minister has given a very detailed and a convincing answer. But the question that I had posed is regarding the change in the IPC, relating to the third party – witness being influenced or bribed or whatever it is. If a complaint comes, the court takes cognisance of that issue, then the evidence has to be gathered; investigation has to be made. How long will it take? Do you intend to put a time frame so that it does not prolong?

श्री राजीव रंजन सिंह ‘ललन’  (बेगूसराय) गृह मंत्री जी ने बहुत विस्तार से बताया और वे बहुत विस्तार से अध्ययन करके इसे लाए। इसमें आईपीसी सीआरपीसी में सुधार की गुंजाइश मंत्री जी लाए हैं। लेकिन उसके साथ-साथ चर्चा का उत्तर देते हुए एक बार माननीय गृह मंत्री जी ने कहा कि गवाहियों के ट्रायल के समय क्रास एग्ज़ामिनेशन के माध्यम से उसे तोड़ा जा सकता है और वहां गलत और सही का फैसला हो सकता है। हमारा सीआरपीसी, आईपीसी या एवीडैंस एक्ट इन्वैस्टीगेशन पर निर्भर करता है और अगर हमारी जांच स्वच्छ और निष्पक्ष नहीं होगी, तो इसके कारण कई मुकदमे अनावश्यक अदालतों में पहुंचते cé[R74] । इसलिए हम चाहेंगे कि आगे भी आप इसे देखें। आज कोई जरूरी नहीं है कि आप इस पर कुछ कहें। चूंकि आप सुधार की दिशा में चल रहे हैं, इसलिए हम चाहते हैं कि आप इस पर विस्तार पूर्वक सोचकर एक कम्प्रीहैन्सिव बिल लाने का प्रयास करें।

श्री प्रभुनाथ सिंह सभापति महोदय, हम लोग भी अपने सुझाव लिखकर भेज देंगे।

श्री छत्तर सिंह दरबार सभापति महोदय, माननीय मंत्री जी ने जो स्पष्टीकरण दिया है, उससे मैं बहुत संतुष्ट हूं। परन्तु एक शब्द बीच में आया है कि हिन्दुस्तान में अन्य देशों के मुकाबले सजा की दर कम है। हमारा कहना है कि भावना यह नहीं होनी चाहिए की सजा की दर कैसे बढ़े बल्कि भावना यह होनी चाहिए कि स्वच्छ न्याय और शुद्ध न्याय कैसे मिले।

SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL I agree with what the hon. Member has said.  आपने जो बताया, उससे मैं पूरी तरह से सहमत हूं। सिर्फ संख्या बढ़ाने के लिए किसी को सजा दी जाये, तो यह कोई न्याय नहीं होता और ऐसा करना ठीक भी नहीं होगा।As far as the time frame within which it can be done, the jurisprudance either civil, criminal, constitutional or international jurisprudance, accepts the principle of natural justice.  You can complaint against any person but you cannot punish him without hearing him, giving him an opportunity to say what he wants to say.  In this process, the time is consumed.  This has to be understood by us.  If you want to punish a person who has induced or threatened a witness to give false evidence, it has to be first established that prima facie he has done it.  When can it be done? It can be done when the first case is decided, when the evidence of the witness who has given false evidence is recorded.  After that the judge can come to the conclusion that this man, who appears to be innocent, is threatened or induced to give false evidence. When he comes to that conclusion, he will then issue the notice, call him to the Court and then starts prosecution. This certainly is going to take a long time.  This kind of a provision was not there in the Indian Penal Code.  The provision of punishing a third person inducing or threatening a witness to give false evidence was not there.  By amending this law, we are making this provision.  Though it will take time but certainly punishment can be given.

MR. CHAIRMAN  : The question is::

“That the Bill further to amend the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1972, as passed by Rajya Sabha, be taken into consideration.  ”   The motion was adopted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The House shall now take up clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill.             The question is:

“That clauses 2 to 9 stand part of the Bill. ”   The motion was adopted.

Clauses 2 to 9 were added to the Bill Clause 1, the Enacting Formula and theLong Title were added to the Bill. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister may now move that the Bill be passed. SHRI SHIVRAJ V. PATIL: Sir, I beg to move:

            "That the Bill be passed".

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question is:

            "That the Bill be passed."

The motion was adopted.

----------

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please take your seats.  I have to make an announcement.  Hon. Members, the subject matter of the Bills listed for consideration and passing at Sl. Nos. 31, 32 and 33 is similar.             If the House agrees, we may have a combined discussion on the three Bills. … (Interruptions)

श्री राजीव रंजन सिंह ‘ललन’  : सभापति महोदय, कोरम नहीं है और बिना कोरम के हाउस कैसे चलेगा? …( व्यवधान)  श्री प्रभुनाथ सिंह: सभापति महोदय, बिना कोरम के हाउस कैसे चलेगा? …( व्यव् ÉvÉÉxÉ[R75] )  मेरा व्यवस्था का प्रश्न है। सदन में गणपूर्ति नहीं है। सभापति महोदय :  प्रभुनाथ सिंह जी, क्या आप कोरम का सवाल रेज कर रहे हैं ? श्री प्रभुनाथ सिंह : जी हां।

सभापति महोदय :    घंटी बजायी जा रही है[R76] ।    

MR. CHAIRMAN  : There is no quorum in the House.    

Now, the House stands adjourned to meet tomorrow, the 23rd of December 2005, at 11.00 a.m. 20.33 hrs. The Lok Sabha then adjourned till Eleven of the clock On Friday, December, 23, 2005/Pausa 02, 1927 (Saka)