The Supreme Court, while hearing a case, remarked that the prosecutor is an officer of the court, whose duty is to act in the interest of justice and not merely to ensure the conviction of the accused. A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice N Kotishwar Singh made this observation while quashing the conviction of three persons in a murder case.
The petitioners have alleged non-compliance of Section 313 of the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPc). The above provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 gives the court the right to interrogate the accused on the basis of the evidence presented.
The bench said, ‘It is equally disturbing for us to see that in their desire to secure conviction of the accused, the prosecutors have sidelined their duty of assisting the court in interrogating the accused under this section.’
The court said, ‘The prosecutor is an officer of the court and it is his sacred duty to act in the interest of justice. He cannot act as a defense counsel, but acts for the State, whose sole objective is to punish the accused.’
The Supreme Court was hearing a petition filed by three accused, in which an order of the Patna High Court was challenged. Patna High Court had upheld his conviction in a murder case. The Supreme Court said that an essential condition of fair trial is that accused persons should be given adequate opportunity to refute the prosecution’s case and claims against them.
The bench said, ‘This adequate opportunity can take many forms, be it adequate representation through counsel or an opportunity to call witnesses to present his side of the case or an opportunity to answer in his own words each allegation made against him. The last opportunity is under Section 313 of CrPC.
After considering the statements of the accused, the Supreme Court said that this reveals a regrettable situation. This is a gross failure on the part of the court to follow the basic principles of law. The bench said, ‘The statements given by the three persons are identical to each other. We are unable to understand how such statements can stand before the learned trial judge.