Prosecutor Can’t Act As Defence Lawyer; Accused Persons Must Have Ample Opportunity To Dispel Claims Against Them: Supreme Court
The Appeals before the Apex Court arose from the final judgments and orders of the Patna High Court affirming the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence in a murder case.
Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has ordered the Trial Court to recommence the recording of the Section 313 CrPC statements in a criminal case, after finding that statements given by three accused persons were carbon copies of each other. The Apex Court also held that the prosecutor is an officer of the Court and cannot act as a defence lawyer.
The Apex Court further mentioned that one of the non-negotiable requirements of a fair trial is that the accused persons should have ample opportunity to dispel the case and claims of the prosecution against them.
The Appeals before the Apex Court arose from the final judgments and orders of the Patna High Court affirming the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence in a murder case. A total of six persons were sentenced to life imprisonment. Three of them had approached the Apex Court.
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh asserted, “It is equally disturbing for us to see that in the desire to secure a conviction for the accused persons, the prosecutor also let their duty of assisting the Court in conducting the examination of the accused under this section fall by the wayside. The prosecutor is an officer of the Court and holds a solemn duty to act in the interest of justice. They cannot act as a defence lawyer, but for the State, with the sole aim of making the gauntlet of punishment fall on the accused.”
“One of the non-negotiable requirements of a fair trial is that the accused persons should have ample opportunity to dispel the case and claims of the prosecution against them”, it added.
Senior Advocate Anjana Prakash represented the Appellant while AOR Azmat Hayat Amanullah represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The incident dates back to the year 2016, when the informant Kachan Pasi along with his father Ghughali Pasi, mother Kouta Devi and sister-in-law Dharmsheela Devi were returning from the fields when the accused persons surrounded them and assaulted Ghughali Pasi with a katta, who died due to the attack. The Trial Court convicted the accused persons. The six accused persons were sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10,000 each under Section 302,34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, one year simple imprisonment each under Sections 448 & 323 along with Section 34 IPC with all of them running concurrently. All the accused persons before the Trial Court filed appeals under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, in which the High Court upheld the findings of the Court below.
Reasoning
The Bench noted that the primary contention in the Special Leave Petition was based on the noncompliance of Section 313, CrPC. The Bench explained that the accused persons should have ample opportunity to dispel the case and claims of the prosecution against them. “This ample opportunity can take many forms, whether it is adequate representation through counsel or the opportunity to call witnesses to present their side of the case or to have the occasion to answer each and every allegation against them, on their own, in their own words. The last one happens under Section 313 CrPC”, it added.
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the statements given by all three accused persons were carbon copies of each other. The Bench was unable to understand how such statements passed muster at the hands of the Trial Judge. On this ground alone, the Bench allowed the Appeals and sent the matter back to the Trial Court to recommence from the state of the recording of the Section 313 CrPC statements. “We may clarify that the remand is limited to the cases of the three appellants before us and our observations herein shall not affect the sanctity of the findings already arrived at, qua the other accused persons”, it concluded.
“A trial is a function of memory; it is this memory that, when translated into spoken word testimony on oath, becomes evidence, and thus the same is susceptible to the vagaries of time”, the Bench stated while directing the concerned Trial Court to do the needful within four months.
Cause Title: Chandan Pasi v. The State of Bihar (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1371)
Appearance
Appellant: Senior Advocate Anjana Prakash, Advocates Anuj Prakaash, Niraj Dubey, Pradum Kumar,AOR Kumar Mihir
Respondent: AOR Azmat Hayat Amanullah, Advocates Rebecca Mishra, Ekta Kundu