Defiant witnesses deserve harsh treatment: Judge

It also held that judiciary is empowered to exercise a reasonable degree of coercive powers to take such witnesses to task. Justice P N Prakash while deciding as to whether a criminal court can direct a prosecution witness and her child to DNA profiling along with the accused, said “This court must necessarily engage in the tortuous exercise because, a witness should be visited with penal consequences on his or her failure to comply with the Court’s direction to give her blood sample, hair, nail etc. A recalcitrant witness cannot be allowed to go scot-free.” 

As per the case, one Prema had lodged a complaint at the All Women Police Station Perambalur against Manikandan and three others. She had alleged that Manikandan had seduced her in the guise of marriage. But subsequently on refusing to marry her, he married a minor girl on March 9, 2015. 

Based on this, Police registered an FIR against him. But the minor girl who had since then become a major and had given birth to a child started offering conflicting versions about Manikandan. Before the Child Welfare Committee, she stated that she was made to live with Manikandan and later, her marriage was performed. Subsequently, when she was produced before the Judicial Magistrate she said “He is my maternal uncle, I do not know anything else and I do not wish to give any statement.” 

But when the trial court directed her and her child to undergo DNA test along with the accused, she moved the High Court challenging it saying it invaded her privacy and may have the consequence of bastardising the child, which cannot be permitted. 

Justice Prakash on dismissing her plea, said that “Administration of justice cannot be jeopardized in the hands of witnesses.”