The Supreme Court expressed shock that instead of assisting the High Court with the correct legal position, the Public Prosecutor pushed for capital punishment for the appellants. The Court noted that judges, being human, might make mistakes under work pressure. However, it is the responsibility of both the defence counsel and the Public Prosecutor to ensure errors are corrected.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India on wednesday, set aside the conviction of three men who were declared guilty by the Punjab & Haryana High Court almost 20 years after they were acquitted by the trial court in a murder case.
A Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan expressed deep concerns about the standards of Public Prosecutors in High Courts. The Court criticized the way in which the Punjab & Haryana High Court overturned the acquittal based on the Public Prosecutor’s arguments.
The Court stated, “Such is the standard of the Public Prosecutors in the High Courts of the country. This is bound to happen when the State Governments across the country appoint AGPs and APPs in their respective High Courts solely on political considerations. Favouritism and nepotism is one additional factor for compromising merit. This judgement is a message to all the State Governments that the AGPs and APPs in respective High Courts should be appointed solely on the merit of the person. The State Government owes a duty to ascertain the ability of the person; how proficient the person is in law, his overall background, his integrity etc…”
The Supreme Court expressed shock that instead of assisting the High Court with the correct legal position, the Public Prosecutor pushed for capital punishment for the appellants. The Court noted that judges, being human, might make mistakes under work pressure. However, it is the responsibility of both the defence counsel and the Public Prosecutor to ensure errors are corrected.
The Bench remarked, “Judges are human beings and at times they do commit mistakes. The sheer pressure of work at times may lead to such errors. At the same time, the defence counsel as well as the Public Prosecutor owes a duty to correct the Court if the Court is falling in some error and for all this, we hold the State Government responsible. It is the State Government who appointed the concerned Public Prosecutor.”
Recognizing the injustice suffered by the three appellants, the Supreme Court directed the Haryana government to pay Rs.5 lakh compensation to each of them. The appellants had spent more than three months in jail due to the High Court’s erroneous decision, despite being acquitted 20 years ago.
Case Background
The case pertained to a murder trial where a lower court in 2005 found two co-accused guilty but acquitted four others, including the three appellants. The State did not appeal against their acquittal. However, the father of the deceased filed a revision petition before the High Court to challenge the acquittal.
The High Court, upon review, found the three appellants guilty and sentenced them to life imprisonment. This led the appellants to challenge the decision before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court had earlier questioned how the High Court could convert an acquittal into a conviction using its revisional powers. The Court had also granted bail to the three appellants in a prior order.
The Bench pointed out another critical issue in the case, stating, “There is one another feature which has disturbed us. According to the learned counsel the High Court proceeded ex-parte without issuing notice to the three appellants herein in the revision petition, who had already been acquitted by the Trial Court.”
Further, before the High Court delivered its judgment, the petitioner who had filed the revision and another person convicted in the case had passed away. The State failed to inform the High Court of this crucial fact.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized, “…it is as clear as a noonday that the High Court committed an egregious error in reversing the acquittal and passing an order of conviction in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction and that too without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellants herein.”
Section 372 CrPC Not Retrospective
The Court also clarified that the amendment to Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), introduced in 2009, is not retrospective. This provision allows victims to appeal against acquittals, lenient convictions, or inadequate compensation.
Rejecting the State’s argument, the Supreme Court held, “…it is very much clear that the amendment so made in Section 372 CrPC by adding a proviso in the year 2009 creating a substantive right of appeal is not retrospective in nature…It is, therefore, clear that in the year 2006 when the judgement of acquittal was passed, the de facto complainant had no right to challenge the impugned order passed in 2006 by way of filing the appeal.”
The Supreme Court stressed that prosecutors should balance the goals of convicting the guilty, protecting citizens’ rights, and ensuring fair trials.
The Court stated, “The prosecutor must recognize these different and competing interests. He should strike a fair balance between the competing interests of convicting the guilty, protecting citizens’ rights and freedoms and protecting the public from criminals. Prosecutors should ensure that prosecutions are conducted in a diligent, competent and fair manner.”
The Bench further elaborated, “A Public Prosecutor is not expected to show a thirst to reach the case in the conviction of the accused somehow or the other irrespective of the true facts of the case…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.”
Ordering the release of the appellants, the Supreme Court warned the State of Haryana that it would take further action if the compensation was not paid within four weeks.
Senior Advocate Indira Unninayar represented the appellants in the case.
Case Title:
Mahabir & Ors v. State of Haryana
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
