“Lapses In Prosecution Too Frequent For Comfort”: Delhi HC Raps Public Prosecutor And ASJ [Read Judgment]

The High Court of Delhi recently came down heavily on the Public Prosecutor and the Additional Sessions Judge for the manner in which witnesses were examined and the trial was conducted in a robbery case.

The Court was hearing a bunch of appeals challenging the conviction and sentence awarded to the Appellants for offences punishable under Sections 392 (punishment for robbery), 394 (voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery) and 397 ( robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt), read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.

The Court expressed disappointment with the questions put to the witnesses, observing that it could not be a “matter of whims, caprice or fancy of the public prosecutor to choose as to what he would ask or what he would avoid asking of the witnesses.”

“The duty of the public prosecutor is one of great responsibility. He holds an office of trust. He is the spokesperson for the society at large. It was the bounden duty of the public prosecutor to examine the witnesses so as to bring on record the evidence in entirety. The manner in which the task of adducing the evidence on behalf of the prosecution has been handled reflects total callous and irresponsible conduct,” Justice R.K. Gauba further observed.

It then went on to rap the Additional Sessions Judge, terming the manner in which the trial was presided over by him as “very disturbing”. During the hearing, it came to the notice of the Court that testimony of a witness had been abandoned midway. Justice Gauba, in this regard, observed that the examination of the same witness as a fresh witness on a later date “shows poor control, if not apathetic attitude.”

The Court further noted that The ASJ had taken it upon himself to take on record material available in the file of the other case in which the same people had been accused of robbery. Justice Gauba opined that if common evidence had to be led against the same set of accused, the proper course would have been to club the proceedings and hold a joint trial.

The Court, therefore, set aside the conviction and the sentence, and remitted the case back to the Trial Court, to conduct the proceedings from the stage of taking prosecution evidence. The Trial Court was directed to begin the proceedings from 10 July. It further ordered that the matter be proceeded with on a day-to-day basis till final adjudication.

Thereafter, directing that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Principal Secretary (Home) of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi for appropriate action at their end, Justice Gauba observed, “Given the deficiency in the manner in which the prosecution was conducted, lapses of such nature coming to the notice of this court too frequently for comfort, it is necessary that suitable action is taken and advice or instructions are issued by the prosecution department to the concerned quarters.”