Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

At the time of passing the impugned order the learned Trial Judge has given permission to the de facto complainant to furnish written argument only after the completion of argument from the prosecution side.

The said order of the learned Trial Judge is under challenge. The impugned order has been assailed by the learned Advocate for the petitioner on several grounds. He has contended that the learned Trial Judge has failed to appreciate that the petitioner is not only the de facto complainant but she is also the victim of the crime within the meaning of Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to his contention the concept of victimology has been recognised by way of statutory amendment in the year 2009 and the right of the victim to engage an advocate of his or her own choice to assist the prosecution has been incorporated in the statute under the proviso to sub-Section 8 of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has forcefully contended that the right of the victim to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal of an accused has got statutory support in the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He has further contended that the present petitioner who is also the victim of the crime and the right of the victim to take part in trial has been recognised by the Parliament by way of amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to his contention that the amended provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure recognising the right of the victim should be interpreted in such a manner so that the purpose and object of the amendment can appropriately be fulfilled and the victim should take active role during trial and the victim should protect his/her interest whenever it is necessary.

The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has tried to impress upon the Court regarding the right of the victim and he has explained the concept of victimology by referring several provisions as incorporated in the Code of Criminal Procedure by way of amendment in the year 2009 and 2013. It is true that several provisions have been incorporated in the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the right of the victim or de facto complainant to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal of the accused. The right of the victim or the de facto complainant has been recognised to challenge the final order passed by the Trial Court after conclusion of trial. Right to challenge the order before the higher forum is one thing and right to conduct session trial is another thing. The Code of Criminal Procedure so far as the trial of session case is concerned, has given only the right to the victim/de facto complainant to assist the prosecution not to conduct the prosecution. This is a restricted right. There is a basic difference in between right to assist the prosecution and right to conduct the prosecution. So far conduct of prosecution is concerned, this right or power is given only to the Public Prosecutor appointed either by the State Government or the Central Government as the case may be. Legislature in its wisdom has given the authority to the Public Prosecutor/or the special public prosecutor as the case may be, to conduct the Session cases. This authority is not subject to any condition or restriction so far as the language used in Section 225 of Cr.P.C. is concerned. The right of the victim to assist the prosecution by engaging his or her lawyer in no way curtails the said right of the Public Prosecutor to conduct the prosecution. Moreover, the victim or complainant can engage his/her advocate with the permission of the Court. Engagement of the Advocate by the victim or de facto complainant is not mandatory. Engagement of the Advocate by the victim is optional and that option can be exercised by the victim/complainant with the permission of the Court.

Moreover, participation of the Advocate of the complainant or the victim in the trial of session case may not be free from bias. The object of fair play in the criminal proceeding may be hampered as the Advocate engaged by the complainant or the victim has no responsibility to place before the Court all the relevant documents/evidence which are necessary for the Court to come to a just decision. Possibility of miscarriage of justice cannot be ruled out.

A conjoint reading of proviso to sub-Section 8 of Section 24, Section 301 and Section 225 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, makes clear that our legislature has clearly demarcated the role of the public prosecution and the lawyer engaged by the victim or de facto complainant. The language used in Section 225 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is unequivocal, unambiguous and Section 225 of the Code does not suffer from any ambiguity. This Section leaves us no doubt that the only the public prosecutor has the authority to conduct session trial. This section is based on the principle of fair play of criminal trial and public prosecutor is expected to maintain the sanctity of impartial trial. That is why, our legislature in its wisdom makes provision in proviso to sub-Section 8 of Section 24 that the victim with the permission of the Court may engage an Advocate to assist the prosecution. This right of the victim also depends upon the discretion of the Court.

The petitioner has sought for permission to put question to defence witness after cross-examination of the Public Prosecutor. An offence is a crime against the State. Public prosecutor is conducting the case on behalf of the State. If the Advocate of the de facto complainant or victim is allowed to cross-examine the defence witness after the cross-examination of the prosecution, then there is every possibility of conflicting answers which may damage the prosecution case. During examination and cross-examination of prosecution and defence witnesses, the Advocate engaged by victim or de facto complainant may assist the public prosecutor. That is why the legislature has used the term to assist the prosecution not to conduct the prosecution. The relief sought for by the petitioner before the learned Trial Court cannot be granted to her as it is contrary to the statutory provision. The right of the victim to engage private pleader to assist the prosecution is based on the principle that the public prosecutor who is conducting the trial of the session case may get proper assistance from the Advocate engaged by victim/de facto complainant both on facts and law, if so required. This does not mean that the lawyer engaged by the private party will examine the prosecution witnesses or cross- examine the defence witnesses.