CrPc Amendments Violets the Fundamental Rights
Posted by humanhorizons on February 17, 2009
In an attempt to enhance the criminal procedure code, some amendments are sought in the present CrPc Code. The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Bill, 2006 will amend the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Some of the recommendations are good but few of them will act against poor and most probably woman, farmers, poor, Dalits, Adivasis, and other marginalized sections of the country.
The standing committee has submitted the report to government this month. See few points to ponder:
· The Bill makes it mandatory for a witness to sign statements made to the police. Material witnesses in heinous offences are to be produced before a magistrate for recording of statement.
· The provisions regarding signing of statements by witnesses may not reduce the chances of a witness turning hostile as there is no change in the evidential value. But this will act against witnesses who are threatened for their life. Social, economic and politically disadvantaged will suffer the most.
· A witness who deviates from his statement given before a magistrate may be tried by a fast-track procedure.
· The role of the lawyer appointed by the victim to “coordinate“with the prosecution is not clear. The mechanism for computing the compensation scheme for victims is not specified.
· The Bill defines a “victim” and provides for a victim compensation scheme. The victim may be permitted to appoint a lawyer to “coordinate” with the prosecution.
· The Bill increases the number of minor offences which can be tried under a fast track procedure. It provides for speedy investigation and trial of sexual offences against women.
· A police officer has to specify in writing the reasons for making an arrest in cases of offence punishable with imprisonment up to seven years. In certain cases, the police can also issue a “notice of arrest” rather than arresting a person.
The timeline specified in the Bill for investigation and trial of a sexual offence against women is not mandatory in nature.
If you feel it is against the interest of oppressed sections, do write to the parliamentarians and ministers.
