Witness Identity Protection - Law Commission of India

42It will be seen from the above directions of the Supreme Court in Sakshithat video-conferencing and putting written questions, were accepted inaddition to screening suggested by the Law Commission. It held that theseprocedures do not offend the provisions of sec 273 which requires a trial inthe presence of the accused.Summary:Summing up the position, it will be seen that there are various facetsof the criminal trial, namely, there is a right to open trial for the benefit ofthe accused and the public have a right to know about the conduct of thetrial, and the accused has a right to have the trial conducted in his presence.But these rights are not absolute.There are conflicting privacy rights of the victims of sexual offencesviolation of which by the media or others are subject to punishment. Thereare provisions for keeping identity of witnesses confidential when the policefiles its charge sheet in the Court. There are special statutes relating to trialof terrorists which contain provisions for protection of identity of witnesses,whose identity must be kept secret during inquiries as well as trials. Thereare recommendations of the Law Commission that in cases of sexualoffences, a screen may be put between a victim (while the victim deposes)and the accused, so that the victim is more free and uninhibited while givingevidence. Finally the Supreme Court, in its Sakshi judgment, extended theprocedures involving video-conferencing (a video circuit system) and thegiving of a list of questions to the victims or witnesses, and stated that these