Even If Court Or Defence Counsel Overlooks Accused's Entitlement To Any Legitimate Benefit During Trial, Public Prosecutor Should Bring It To Court’s Attention: SC
The Supreme Court directed the State to pay Rs. 5 Lakh each to the three Appellants towards compensation for their unlawful detention.
The Supreme Court has held that even if the Court or the defence counsel overlooks an accused entitlement to any legitimate benefit during trial, the Public Prosecutor has the added responsibility to bring it to the notice of the Court, if it comes to their knowledge.
The Court allowed the Appeal challenging the Order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court that set aside the acquittal granted by the Trial Court in a 1998 murder case and in turn convicted the Appellants for life for murder. The Court reiterated that sub-section (3) of Section 401 of the CrPC prohibits/bars the High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction.
A Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan held, “The expected attitude of the Public Prosecutor while conducting prosecution must be couched in fairness not only to the Court to the investigation agencies but to the accused as well. If an accused is entitled to any legitimate benefit during trial, the Public Prosecutor should not scuttle/conceal it. On the contrary, it is the duty of the Public Prosecutor to winch it to the fore and make it available to the accused. Even if the court or defence counsel overlooked it, the Public Prosecutor has the added responsibility to bring it to the notice of the Court, if it comes to his knowledge.”
AOR Indira Unninayar represented the Appellants, while AOR Samar Vijay Singh appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The Prosecution alleged that in 1998, there was a scuffle which took place between two groups in a village. The deceased victim succumbed to his injuries, and his father named the Appellants as accused persons.
However, before the father’s FIR was even registered, one of the accused had already filed a cross-complaint alleging that the deceased initiated the attack on them first.
After a seven-year-long trial, the Trial Court acquitted all the Appellants due to lack of evidence. However, More than seven years after the acquittal, the father of the deceased moved the High Court by filing a Criminal Revision Petition in 2006 challenging the Trial Court’s decision.
High Court’s Decision
The High Court, in its 2024 judgment, delivered nearly 18 years after the Revision was filed, held that the acquittal was erroneous. It convicted the Appellants under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.50k each.
The appellants were taken into custody immediately after the verdict.
Supreme Court’s Reasoning
Even though the said prayer was rejected, the Court found it “disturbing” that instead of assisting the Court on the correct position of law, the Public Prosecutor went ahead praying before the Court that the Appellants deserved capital punishment.
“The Public Prosecutor instead of assisting the learned Judges in the right direction by pointing out the correct position of law went to the extent of praying before the Court that the appellants herein deserved capital punishment. It is a different thing that the High Court rejected the prayer of the Public Prosecutor,” the Bench remarked.
“The duty of the prosecutor is to assist the Court in reaching a proper conclusion in regard to the case which is brought before it for trial…He must not suppress or keep back from the court evidence relevant to the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. He must present the complete picture, and not a one sided picture…He has to be fair to both sides in the presentation of the case,” the Court observed.
Consequently, the Court held:
- “The appellants and their respective families suffered shock, trauma and despair, upon they being taken in sudden custody after being acquitted twenty years ago, for a crime that they had not committed.
- The appellants have had to suffer the ignominy of incarceration, with its concomitant physical, mental and emotional hardship.
- The appellants were wrongly denied their liberty, dignity and reputation as they were branded as criminals for this period.
- The appellants live within a small community in their village, and today, they face social stigma as well, for the above reasons.
- It is, therefore, only just and proper that their positions be duly vindicated, their names be cleared, and that they be properly compensated as well, for their unjust denial of liberty, dignity and reputation.”
Conclusion
Supreme Court passed the following orders:
- The High Court’s judgment convicting the Appellants was set aside.
- “It is, therefore, only just and proper that their positions be duly vindicated, their names be cleared, and that they be properly compensated as well, for their unjust denial of liberty, dignity and reputation,” the Bench ordered.
- The appellants were ordered to be released immediately.
- The Court directed the State of Haryana to compensate the Appellants for illegal detention. “The appellants were wrongly denied their liberty, dignity and reputation as they were branded as criminals for this period,” it remarked.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Mahabir & Ors. v. State Of Haryana (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 120)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Indira Unninayar; Advocate Rukhsana Choudhury
Respondent: AOR Samar Vijay Singh; Advocates Sabarni Som, Keshav Mittal and Fateh Singh
