neerajchauhan
Neeraj K Chauhan
A person who ceases to be a witness after the trial is over is subjected to grievous hurt. It results in the loss of an organ. He is subjected to this harm because he was a witness. Protection of a person, who opts to be a witness is understandable, once his status as a witness is done away with, what about the risk he incurred as a witness. strange but true.
Protection of a witness is a futile wild goose chase, if the word protection is a vascilating paradox. A witness is given protection for the purpose of a trial proceeding. He is harmed, or is threatened to be harmed, such intimidation is challenging the power of the state. The trial is defunct / over / pending, any harm caused raises the state as the only party. If the state snubs the harmed, in the mask of protection, the de-facto can not even get to protect him / herself in court. A witness today shall live tomorrow unprejudiced, thats the best form of protection.
Protection of a witness is a futile wild goose chase, if the word protection is a vascilating paradox. A witness is given protection for the purpose of a trial proceeding. He is harmed, or is threatened to be harmed, such intimidation is challenging the power of the state. The trial is defunct / over / pending, any harm caused raises the state as the only party. If the state snubs the harmed, in the mask of protection, the de-facto can not even get to protect him / herself in court. A witness today shall live tomorrow unprejudiced, thats the best form of protection.