Top News

The Supreme Court said that an essential condition of a fair trial is that the accused persons should get an adequate opportunity to rebut the case and claims of the prosecution against them.

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, while hearing a case, remarked that the prosecutor is an officer of the court whose duty is to act in the interests of justice, not merely to secure the conviction of the accused. A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh made this remark while setting aside the convictions of three individuals in a murder case.

The petitioners alleged non-compliance with Section 313 of the Indian Penal Code (CrPC). This provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, empowers the court to examine the accused based on the evidence presented.

The bench said, 'It is equally disturbing for us to see that in their desire to secure the conviction of the accused, the prosecutors have even ignored their duty to assist the court in examining 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 lawyer but acts on behalf of the state, whose sole objective is to punish the accused."

The Supreme Court was hearing a petition filed by three accused, challenging an order of the Patna High Court, which had upheld their conviction in a murder case. The Supreme Court held that an essential condition for a fair trial is that the accused persons be given an adequate opportunity to rebut the prosecution's case and claims against them.

The bench said, "This adequate opportunity may take various forms, whether it be adequate representation by counsel, or an opportunity to call witnesses to present his side of the case, or an opportunity to answer each charge against him in his own words. The last opportunity is under Section 313 of the CrPC."

After examining the statements of the accused, the Supreme Court stated that they reveal a deplorable situation. This is a gross failure on the part of the court to adhere to the basic principles of law. The bench said, "The statements made by the three individuals are identical to each other. We are unable to understand how such statements can stand before the learned trial judge."