Smruti Tukaram Badade V. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court recognised the need and importance of setting up facilities that create a safe environment for recording the evidence of vulnerable witnesses. It provided directions for the setting up of centres for vulnerable witnesses (including minors). It was clarified that the definition of “vulnerable witness” contained in Clause 3(a) of the ‘Guidelines for Recording Evidence of Vulnerable Witnesses in Criminal Matters’ of the High Court of Delhi shall not be limited only to child witnesses who have attained the age of 18 years and should be expanded to include (a) age-neutral victims of sexual assault; (b) gender-neutral victims of sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”); (c) age-neutral and gender-neutral victims of sexual assault under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”); (d) witnesses suffering from “mental illness” as defined under the Mental Healthcare Act 2017; (e) any witness deemed to have a threat perception under the Witness Protection Scheme 2018; (f) any speech-impaired or hearing-impaired individual or a person suffering from any other disability who is considered to be a vulnerable witness by the competent court; and (g) any other witness deemed to be vulnerable by the concerned court.

Case Notes

Facts

In the present case, the Registrars of all the High Courts were directed to submit a status report with regards to the establishment of the vulnerable witness deposition courtrooms in compliance of the directions of the Court in State of Maharashtra v Bandu. Subsequently, the Registrar General of various High Courts submitted their compliance reports.

Judgment

The court expanded the definition beyond just child witnesses under 18 to include age-neutral and gender-neutral victims of sexual assault, witnesses with “mental illness,” those with threat perceptions under the Witness Protection Scheme, speech or hearing-impaired individuals, and any other witness deemed vulnerable by a court. All High Courts were directed to adopt and notify a VWDC Scheme within two months, using the Delhi High Court’s scheme as a model. Every High Court must set up an in-house permanent VWDC Committee to supervise implementation, assess the number of centres required, and coordinate training. The court mandated that at least one permanent VWDC must be set up in every District Court establishment within four months. It also provides structuring, definition, and finances (directions) for the establishment of VWDCs.