2019 (11) TMI 1803 - SC - Indian Laws

Extent to which a victim s counsel can participate in the prosecution of a case - HELD THAT - In our criminal justice system the Public Prosecutor occupies a position of great importance. Given that crimes are treated as a wrong against the society as a whole his role in the administration of justice is crucial as he is not just a representative of the aggrieved person but that of the State at large. Though he is appointed by the Government he is not a servant of the Government or the investigating agency. He is an officer of the Court and his primary duty is to assist the Court in arriving at the truth by putting forth all the relevant material on behalf of the prosecution. A Public Prosecutor is entrusted with the responsibility of conducting the prosecution of a case. That this is a crucial role is evident from conditions such as in Section 24(7) which stipulates a minimum legal experience of seven years for a person to be eligible to be a Public Prosecutor. It is further clear from a joint reading of Section 301 and the proviso to Section 24(8) that the two provisions are mutually complementary. There is no bar on the victim engaging a private counsel to assist the prosecution subject to the permission of the Court. There is no denying that Public Prosecutors are often overworked. In certain places there may be a single Public Prosecutor conducting trials in over 2 3 courts. Thus the possibility of them missing out on certain aspects of the case cannot be ignored or discounted. A victim centric approach that allows for greater participation of the victim in the conduct of the trial can go a long way in plugging such gaps - the balance inherent in the scheme of the CrPC should not be tampered with and the prime role accorded to the Public Prosecutor should not be diluted. The High Court was correct in dismissing the application made by the Appellant seeking permission for her counsel to cross examine witnesses after the Public Prosecutor. However in future if the Sessions Judge finds that the assistance of a private counsel is necessary for the victim he may permit it - Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Extent of participation of a victim’s counsel in the prosecution of a case.
2. Role and primacy of the Public Prosecutor in a Sessions trial.
3. Interpretation and application of Sections 24(8), 225, 301, and 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973.
4. Balancing victim’s rights with fair trial principles.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Extent of Participation of a Victim’s Counsel in the Prosecution of a Case:
The main issue in this case is the extent to which a victim’s counsel can participate in the prosecution. The appellant, a widow of the deceased, sought to advance oral arguments, raise objections, examine prosecution witnesses, and cross-examine defense witnesses through her counsel. The trial court rejected this application, stating that the victim's counsel's role is restricted to assisting the Public Prosecutor and cannot independently conduct the prosecution.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the term "assist" in the proviso to Section 24(8) of the CrPC implies a secondary role for the victim’s counsel. This role is supportive and does not extend to making oral arguments or examining witnesses, which would amount to parallel prosecution. The Court held that the victim’s counsel could suggest questions or points to the Public Prosecutor, who would then decide whether to incorporate them. If the Public Prosecutor fails to address these suggestions, the victim’s counsel can bring them to the Judge's attention, who may take appropriate action.

2. Role and Primacy of the Public Prosecutor in a Sessions Trial:
The Court highlighted the crucial role of the Public Prosecutor in the criminal justice system, emphasizing that crimes are treated as wrongs against society as a whole. The Public Prosecutor, as an officer of the Court, must assist in arriving at the truth by presenting all relevant material. The Public Prosecutor's role is independent and should be fair to the Court, the investigating agencies, and the accused.

Sections 225 and 301 of the CrPC underscore the primacy of the Public Prosecutor in conducting a Sessions trial. The Public Prosecutor is mandated to conduct the prosecution, and any private counsel engaged by the victim must act under the Public Prosecutor's directions.

3. Interpretation and Application of Sections 24(8), 225, 301, and 302 of the CrPC:
The Court analyzed these sections to determine the victim’s counsel's role. Section 24(8) allows the victim to engage a counsel to assist the prosecution, but this is subject to the Public Prosecutor's control as per Section 301(2). The Court rejected the argument that the proviso to Section 24(8) applies only to Special Public Prosecutors, stating that it applies to the prosecution in general.

The Court found that a harmonious reading of these provisions indicates that the victim’s counsel can assist but not conduct the prosecution. The assistance is limited to suggesting questions or points through the Public Prosecutor or the Judge, ensuring that the victim’s counsel does not overshadow the Public Prosecutor's role.

4. Balancing Victim’s Rights with Fair Trial Principles:
The Court acknowledged the need for greater victim participation in criminal trials, as reflected in the 2009 amendment to the CrPC. However, it stressed that this participation should not compromise the trial's fairness or the Public Prosecutor's primacy. Allowing the victim’s counsel to independently conduct parts of the prosecution could lead to inconsistencies and potentially vindictive prosecutions, which would undermine the trial's fairness.

The Court concluded that while the victim’s counsel plays a crucial role in ensuring justice, this role must be balanced with the need for a fair trial and the Public Prosecutor's primary responsibility. The victim’s counsel can assist by suggesting questions or points, but not by making oral arguments or examining witnesses independently.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the victim’s counsel's role is limited to assisting the Public Prosecutor. The counsel can suggest questions or points, but the Public Prosecutor retains control over the prosecution. This balance ensures that the victim's rights are respected without compromising the fairness of the trial. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.