Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court recently upheld the conviction of an appellant charged with offences under Section 324, 326 of the Penal Code, 1860, observing that the role of a public prosecutor in a criminal trial is crucial as their duty is not only limited to defending the State but also placing on record the entire material collected by the investigating agency before the Court, so as to arrive at a just and proper decision.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, while upholding the conviction of the appellant, said, “The reasoning given by the learned Trial Court and the judicial precedents as discussed in para no. 19 and 21 do not persuade this Court to reach a conclusion that the conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court was erroneous on facts or on law.”

Placing reliance on the judgments in State of Bihar v. Laloo Prasad, (2002) 9 SCC 626 and Rajesh Yadav v. State of UP, (2022) 12 SCC 200, with respect to Hostile witness, Court observed, “it becomes evident that when a witness, who has been called by the State, supports the case of the prosecution in examination-in-chief, but resiles from his earlier statements during cross-examination, the public prosecutor who had called the witness to strengthen the case of prosecution has a right to cross-examine the same witness who has turned hostile, and it is the duty of the trial Court to ensure that the prosecutor is not arbitrarily denied the opportunity to avail this legitimate right. This duty of the Court assumes even greater significance when the witness turns hostile during cross-examination that occurs after a significant lapse of time.”

Evaluating the Right of State v. Right of Accused, the Court added that the State has the same right to defend its case and prove the accused guilty by persuasively presenting its case and evidence before the Court through its prosecutors, as the accused does to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

On the Prosecution’s right to cross-examine and properly defend the State, Court further observed, “Unfortunately, the request of learned APP for the State to the Court to cross-examine these witnesses had been declined by the learned Trial Court without even a single reason mentioned as to why such request was being declined. In this regard, this Court is constrained to observe that while the witness was denying having given statements to the police and was also deviating from his examination-in chief, the learned APP for the State had a right to defend the State by cross-examining the witness regarding the same.”

Court also took cognizance of the multi-dimensional responsibilities of the Public Prosecutors in a criminal trial noting that disputes do not always revolve around the complainant and the accused; the State must also defend itself against an offender's criminal activity – The State stands in for its citizens because it has a responsibility to uphold the rule of law and in that context, Public prosecutors assume multi-fold responsibilities.

“The public prosecutors not only help to execute the society’s principle concern of pursuing punishment for criminal behaviour through judicial adjudicatory process, but also protect the rights of the persons involved in criminal proceedings. The right of the State through its prosecutors ensures that the law not only protects the fundamental rights of the victims of crime, but also of the witnesses for whom the prosecutors owe a responsibility, as it is the prosecutor who deals with the prosecution witnesses, victims, addresses arguments on bail, and recommends sentencing”, Court said.

Brief Background

The present appeal was filed by the appellant under Section 374 read with Section 482 of the CrPC, 1973, seeking to set aside the order dated 30.03.2009 and sentence dated 13.04.2009, passed by the Sessions Court under Section 307 of the Penal Code, 1860.

The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 326, 324 of the Penal Code, 1860, sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 1000.

Counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the evidence produced was inadmissible.

Factually, it was contended that the appellant did not cause any injury during the scuffle with the complainant and that the doctor was not examined on the point as to whether the stab wound could have been caused with the weapon of offence in question.

Case title: Antosh v. State | Crl. A 415 of 2009