The Supreme Court of India.
Credit: PTI Photo
New Delhi: A prosecutor is an officer of the court who has the duty to act in the interest of justice and not with the sole aim of securing a conviction of the accused, the Supreme Court has said.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh made the observation while setting aside the convictions of three individuals in a murder case.
The petitioners alleged non-compliance with Section 313 of the CrPC. This provision of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, bestows upon the court the power to examine the accused with respect to the evidence which has been produced.
"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 bench said.
"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," it said.
The top court was hearing a plea filed by the three accused challenging an order of the Patna High Court, which upheld their conviction in a murder case.
The top court said 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.
"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," the bench said.
The apex court, after perusing statements of the accused, said it reveals a sorry state of affairs - an abject failure on the part of the Court in complying with the basic tenets of law.
"The statements given by all three persons are carbon copies of each other. How such statements can pass muster at the hands of the learned trial judge is something which we fail to understand," it said.