Will not supply advance information about witnesses: Prosecution to tell Court

The hullabaloo over the “disappearance of evidence” concerning the Kathua rape trial has been clarified by the prosecution. On Monday, the prosecution opened a sealed box containing evidence and hair strands belonging to the deceased. The hair samples were sent for examination to a forensic laboratory.

However, the packets were found empty after the sealed box was opened, which led to confusion among the prosecutors, and the investigative agency gave the defence an opportunity to question the integrity of the investigation.

The prosecution though quickly clarified the confusion. The agency officials contacted the Director of the Forensic Science Laboratory who conveyed that as per procedure, the hair samples were “consumed” for examination. Hence, the boxes when returned after resealing were found to be empty.


As per available information, the FSL director will send a certificate of assurance, sticking to its examination of the sample and that it belonged to the eight-year-old nomad girl.

Also, a representative of the laboratory will be called to depose before the court to testify the examination. Meanwhile, the prosecution has decided to oppose the demand of advance information of witnesses by the defence.

ET has reliably learnt that the prosecution will stoutly oppose, on Wednesday, the demand made by the defence. For, the investigative agency apprehends threat to the witnesses. People with knowledge of the matter told ET that the agency is of the view that the Supreme Court has ordered “security” of the witnesses which would imply that they should not be exposed to any threat or influence from the accused.

The prosecution will leave it to the wisdom of the court to allow or reject the application of the defence seeking advance knowledge of the witnesses to be examined in the court.

On Monday, the defence counsel AK Sawhney had moved an application on behalf of the accused seeking prior information about the witness to be examined by the prosecution.

The application cited fair trail and ‘prevention of prejudice’ against the accused.

The application contended that it “agrees with the principle of witness protection” it could not be used to “hide the names of witnesses” leaving the defence to do “guess work” about the witnesses to be examined the next day. The defence has the entire list of prosecution witnesses but does not know in advance who would be examined each day.

It contended that it was not possible to prepare for a “voluminous and bulky” case without knowing which witness would be cross-examined each day. The application will come up for prosecution's response on Wednesday.

There are a total of 221 witnesses in the case, and over ten have been examined so far