'Prosecutor Has Duty To State, Accused And Court; They Are Not Representatives Of Any Party': Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday (18.08.2023) convicted Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) leader and former Member of Parliament (MP) Prabhunath Singh in a double murder case of 1995, reversing his acquittal granted by the trial court and confirmed by the Patna High Court.The Apex Court heavily criticized the 'deplorable conduct' of the Presiding Officer of the Trial Court in the case, which according to the Court resulted in the miscarriage of justice at various steps of the trial. The Apex Court also said that the three main stake holders in the criminal trial, i.e, the Investigating Officer, part of the police of the State of Bihar, the Public Prosecutor, and the Judiciary, failed miserably in performing their respective duties and responsibilities.Singh, who was contesting elections as a candidate of the Bihar People's Party (BPP) then, was accused of murdering two persons near a polling booth in Chhapra in March 1995 for not voting as per his suggestion. In a strongly worded judgment, the Supreme Court called the trial "shabby" and the investigation "tainted", which showed the "highhandedness of the accused-Respondent no.2, who was a powerful person, being a sitting M.P. of the Ruling Party". In 2008, a Patna court had acquitted Singh citing lack of evidence. The acquittal was later upheld by the Patna High Court in 2012. Consequently, the brother of one of the victims challenged the acquittal in the Supreme Court. The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Abhay S Oka, and Justice Vikram Nath. “Prabhunath Singh (accused no.1) is thus liable to be convicted under Sections 302 and 307 IPC for committing culpable homicide amounting to murder and attempt to murder.” the Apex Court judgment reads.The Apex court while reversing the acquittal by the High Court observed that Singh had influenced and won over almost all the witnesses, the relevant formal witnesses including the Investigating Officer were not produced in the trial by the prosecution, the Public Prosecutor was supporting the defence's case and the Presiding Officers of the Trial Court were insensitive towards their ‘pious’ duty. Pointing out several lapses in the trial, the Apex Court called the case "an exceptionally painful episode of our Criminal Justice System.” Some of the lapses include the lack of explanation for not presenting the scribe of the FIR in court. The Investigating Officer who was crucial to the case was also not produced by the prosecution. The Apex Court also questioned the Public Prosecutor's dubious conduct in examining witnesses under Section 311 of CrPC to strengthen the defense's position. The lapses on the part of the prosecution in conducting the trial and on the part of the Investigating Agency has been summarised by the Apex Court as below:a) No explanation was given for not producing the scribe of the FIR. In case the scribe was not available for some reason then someone else from the police station could have been produced to prove the hand writing and signature of the scribe. b) The Investigating Officer not produced by the prosecution, is again a clear and deliberate lapse. c) Non-production of other prosecution witnesses of preparing the recovery/seizure list, inquest report, carrying the dead-body to the hospital, and absence of any effort to prove other formal aspects of the investigation clearly indicate malice and deliberate lapse on the part of the prosecution. d) The conduct of the Public Prosecutor in filing affidavits in evidence of the witnesses of fact despite directions of the High Court and further examining witnesses under 311 CrPC to strengthen the case of defence reflects the tainted role of the Public Prosecutor.“This Court is conscious of the fact that a path different from the normal is being adopted to determine the guilt of the accused. The Court is compelled to do so in the glaringly peculiar facts of the present case…” the Apex Court said while discussing its findings on the lapses in the investigation and erroneous manner in which the trial was conducted, which lead to the acquittal of the prime accused. Stakeholders of the Criminal Trial Failed To Perform Their DutyThe Apex Court came down heavily on the 'deplorable conduct' of the Presiding Officer of the Trial Court, which according to the Court resulted in the miscarriage of justice at various steps of the trial.The Apex Court observed that the conduct of the Public Prosecutor in the case made it clear that he was acting in the interest of the accused, which the courts below failed to notice. The trial court also ignored the judgement of the Habeas Corpus petition, which had held that the mother of the deceased was threatened and intimidated:“They continued with their classical rut of dealing with the evidence in a manner as if it was a normal trial. They failed to notice the conduct of the Public Prosecutor in not even examining the formal witnesses and also that the Public Prosecutor was acting to...

'Prosecutor Has Duty To State, Accused And Court; They Are Not Representatives Of Any Party': Supreme Court

Sheryl Sebastian

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sheryl Sebastian

'Prosecutor Has Duty To State, Accused And Court; They Are Not Representatives Of Any Party': Supreme Court

Sheryl Sebastian

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sheryl Sebastian

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers