Witness Identity Protection - Law Commission of India

50protection to them, shifting them from their place of residence to some othersafe place, allowing video tape interview of such persons, testifying in courtvia closed circuit television or erecting a screen between victim andaccused, cross examination by Presiding Officer on the basis of questionsalready given by the accused, and that giving threat or intimidation tovictims or her relatives by the accused be made an offence punishable toseven years imprisonment, creating a separate directorate with properinfrastructure for securing the object of giving protection to these victims.State Government of Orissa has suggested that observations anddirections of the Supreme Court made in Sakshi vs Union of India (2004) 6SCALE, 15 may be taken into consideration for protection of these victimsand that section 273 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 be suitably amended.Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi has suggested thatthe prosecutrix should be protected from the direct view of the accused aswell as his counsel, questions should be submitted to the Judge, who in turnwill ask the questions from the prosecutrix, and the statements should berecorded in the local language of the prosecutrix.State Government of Bihar is of the view that in such cases, the trialJudge, and the advocates for the prosecution and defence should be female,so that victim may speak with comparative ease. As the victim wouldnarrate the occurrence with ease, she would not consider the ordeal offacing cross-examination to be even worse than rape itself.