'Prosecutor Has Duty To State, Accused And Court; They Are Not Representatives Of Any Party': Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday (18.08.2023) convicted Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) leader and former Member of Parliament (MP) Prabhunath Singh in a double murder case of 1995, reversing his acquittal granted by the trial court and confirmed by the Patna High Court.

The Apex Court heavily criticized the 'deplorable conduct' of the Presiding Officer of the Trial Court in the case, which according to the Court resulted in the miscarriage of justice at various steps of the trial. The Apex Court also said that the three main stake holders in the criminal trial, i.e, the Investigating Officer, part of the police of the State of Bihar, the Public Prosecutor, and the Judiciary, failed miserably in performing their respective duties and responsibilities.

Singh, who was contesting elections as a candidate of the Bihar People's Party (BPP) then, was accused of murdering two persons near a polling booth in Chhapra in March 1995 for not voting as per his suggestion.

In a strongly worded judgment, the Supreme Court called the trial "shabby" and the investigation "tainted", which showed the "highhandedness of the accused-Respondent no.2, who was a powerful person, being a sitting M.P. of the Ruling Party". 

In 2008, a Patna court had acquitted Singh citing lack of evidence. The acquittal was later upheld by the Patna High Court in 2012. Consequently, the brother of one of the victims challenged the acquittal in the Supreme Court.

The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Abhay S Oka, and Justice Vikram Nath.

“Prabhunath Singh (accused no.1) is thus liable to be convicted under Sections 302 and 307 IPC for committing culpable homicide amounting to murder and attempt to murder.” the Apex Court judgment reads.

The Apex court while reversing the acquittal by the High Court observed that Singh had influenced and won over almost all the witnesses, the relevant formal witnesses including the Investigating Officer were not produced in the trial by the prosecution, the Public Prosecutor was supporting the defence's case and the Presiding Officers of the Trial Court were insensitive towards their ‘pious’ duty. 

Pointing out several lapses in the trial, the Apex Court called the case "an exceptionally painful episode of our Criminal Justice System.” Some of the lapses include the lack of explanation for not presenting the scribe of the FIR in court. The Investigating Officer who was crucial to the case was also not produced by the prosecution. The Apex Court also questioned the Public Prosecutor's dubious conduct in examining witnesses under Section 311 of CrPC to strengthen the defense's position.

The lapses on the part of the prosecution in conducting the trial and on the part of the Investigating Agency has been summarised by the Apex Court as below:

a) No explanation was given for not producing the scribe of the FIR. In case the scribe was not available for some reason then someone else from the police station could have been produced to prove the hand writing and signature of the scribe.

b) The Investigating Officer not produced by the prosecution, is again a clear and deliberate lapse.

c) Non-production of other prosecution witnesses of preparing the recovery/seizure list, inquest report, carrying the dead-body to the hospital, and absence of any effort to prove other formal aspects of the investigation clearly indicate malice and deliberate lapse on the part of the prosecution.

d) The conduct of the Public Prosecutor in filing affidavits in evidence of the witnesses of fact despite directions of the High Court and further examining witnesses under 311 CrPC to strengthen the case of defence reflects the tainted role of the Public Prosecutor.

“This Court is conscious of the fact that a path different from the normal is being adopted to determine the guilt of the accused. The Court is compelled to do so in the glaringly peculiar facts of the present case…” the Apex Court said while discussing its findings on the lapses in the investigation and erroneous manner in which the trial was conducted, which lead to the acquittal of the prime accused.  

Stakeholders of the Criminal Trial Failed To Perform Their Duty

The Apex Court came down heavily on the 'deplorable conduct' of the Presiding Officer of the Trial Court, which according to the Court resulted in the miscarriage of justice at various steps of the trial.

The Apex Court observed that the conduct of the Public Prosecutor in the case made it clear that he was acting in the interest of the accused, which the courts below failed to notice. The trial court also ignored the judgement of the Habeas Corpus petition, which had held that the mother of the deceased was threatened and intimidated:

“They continued with their classical rut of dealing with the evidence in a manner as if it was a normal trial. They failed to notice the conduct of the Public Prosecutor in not even examining the formal witnesses and also that the Public Prosecutor was acting to the advantage of the accused rather than prosecuting the accused with due diligence and honesty. The Presiding Officer of the Trial Court acquitting the accused as also the learned Judge of the High Court dismissing the revision, were both well-aware of the facts, legal procedures, as well as the law regarding appreciation of evidence in a criminal case. Both the courts below ignored the administrative reports as also the judgment of the High Court in the Habeas Corpus petition. In fact they should have taken judicial notice of the same. They completely failed to take into consideration the conduct of the accused subsequent to the incident, which was extremely relevant and material in view of Section 8 of the Evidence Act. They failed to draw any adverse inference against the accused with respect to their guilt.” the Supreme Court held.

The Apex Court noted that the three main stake holders in the criminal trial, i.e, the Investigating Officer, part of the police of the State of Bihar, the Public Prosecutor, and the Judiciary, have all failed to perform their respective duties and responsibilities.

The Court in this regard stressed on the role and importance of the Public Prosecutor by referring to the 197th Law Commission Report on Public Prosecutors’ Appointments (2006):

“The Prosecutor has a duty to the state, to the accused and the Court. The Prosecutor is all times a minister of justice, though seldom so described. It is not the duty of the prosecuting counsel to secure a conviction, not should any prosecutor even feel pride or satisfaction in the mere fact of success.”

The Apex Court also placed reliance on the 154th Law Commission Report:

“Prosecutors are the ministers of Justice whose job is none other than assisting the State in the administration of Justice. They are not representatives of any party. Their job is to assist the Court by placing before the Court all relevant aspects of the case. They are also not there to see the culprits escape conviction.”

The Top Court found the acquittal by the trial court and High Court to be erroneous on several counts. Criticizing the courts below for their failure to administer justice, the Top Court said:

“The Trial Court and the High Court miserably failed to notice the sensitivity and intricacies of the case. Both the Courts completely shut their eyes to the manner of the investigation, the Prosecutor’s role, and the high-handedness of the accused as also the conduct of the Presiding Officer of the Trial Court, despite observations and findings having been recorded not only by the Administrative Judge but also by the Division Bench deciding Habeas Corpus petition.”

"The High Court has completely failed to take up the merit of the case in its right perspective and failed to take note of the sensitivity attached to the case" the Apex Court added.

Findings In Habeas Corpus Petition Filed In Connection With Abduction Of Mother Of The Deceased Reveals How Accused Used His Political Power To Interfere With Trial

The Apex Court observed that even though the accused was successful in covering most of his bases, including turning most witnesses hostile, the ‘glaring mistake’ on his part was the abduction of the mother of one of the deceased and an eye witness in the incident, ten days before her statement was to be recorded. A Habeas Corpus Petition was filed before the High Court in this regard, where it was noted that her statements before the Trial Court and her statement under Section 164 CrPC ‘were not free and voluntary but under duress and intimidation’.

The High Court in its judgment in the Habeas Corpus Petition made several observations on the merits of the case, including how political power was used to destroy the prosecution case. However, this judgment was not relied on by the prosecution before the Trial Court.

“In the said judgement, certain inferences, observations and findings arrived at by the Division Bench have a crucial impact on the merit of the present case, as it gives a complete picture as to how the prosecution version in the present case was being demolished brick by brick by using political authority and muscle power with the aid of not only the police administration but also with the aid of Public Prosecutor and unfortunately, the Presiding Officer of the Trial Court also conducted himself in a manner unbecoming of a Judicial Officer, despite directions and continuous vigil by the High Court.” The Apex Court said.

The Apex Court considered the question of whether it can, in appeal consider the High Court’s judgement in the Habeas Corpus Writ Petition, which was not part of the evidence produced, as a piece of incriminating evidence in the nature of a Public Document.

The Court observed that judicial notice of any fact is generally not taken in criminal matters in the normal course of the proceedings, and the case is usually to be decided on the basis of oral, material and documentary evidence adduced by the parties to ascertain the guilt or innocence of the accused.

“the judicial notice of any fact is generally not taken in criminal matters, but the present matter stands on an altogether different footing in view of what has been noted hereinbefore. It falls in the category of rarest of rare cases and hence, it requires a different approach.” The Court concluded.

The Apex Court hence decided to take judicial notice of the findings in the Habeas Corpus petition, which points towards the guilt of the accused in his subsequent conduct, the biased manner in which the Public Prosecutor led the prosecution, and the manner in which the Police and the Presiding Officer of the Trial Court favour accused, a powerful politician:

“The judgement dated 13.03.2007, which is a public document, is well discussed and is based upon authoritative materials and was passed in consonance with the doctrine of audi alteram partem. Moreover, it has a torch bearer effect over the facts of the case. Thus, it qualifies the requirement of law for the purpose of taking judicial notice thereof, and this Court takes judicial notice of the inferences, observations and findings arrived at by the Division Bench and the directions issued in its judgement dated 13.03.2007 to the extent of the subsequent conduct of the accused, deplorable functioning of the Public Prosecutor, Police Administration and the Presiding Officer of the Trial Court to extend undesirable favour to the accused” the Apex Court said.

"The High Court ought to have considered the checkered history of events that occurred in the case, resulting in the judgement of the Division Bench of the High Court in the Habeas Corpus Petition containing serious observations about the conduct of all the stakeholders of the said criminal trial.." The Supreme Court said.

With regard to the mother’s testimony, the Apex Court found that it was reliable and conformed with the contents of the FIR.

Subsequent Conduct of Accused Points Towards His Guilt 

The Apex Court observed that the conduct of the accused was one of the major factors to arrive at a conclusion about his guilt.

“there is no iota of doubt that the accused-Respondent No.2 was instrumental in making all possible efforts to wipe out the evidence against him and the Prosecution machinery as also the Presiding Officer of the Trial Court, if we may say so, was used as a tool of his high-handedness.” the Court said. 

The Apex Court said that his actions points towards a guilty mind fearful of the outcome of the trial: 

“The obvious question pops up in the mind of any prudent person, as to why he was instrumental, when he was not guilty of the offence to which he was being tried. The obvious answer to this would reasonably come to mind of any prudent person that his guilty mind was fearful about the result. All these aspects leave no room for doubt that the subsequent conduct of Respondent No.2 is one of the major circumstances pointing towards his guilt for the incident that occurred at 9AM on 25.3.1995.”

Gross Violation of Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

The Top Court observed that Section 311 CrPC which confers wide powers on any court at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding to summon material witness or examine any person was not used appropriately in this case. 'The logic behind this provision is that the endeavour of the Courts is to find out the truth which would be essential for the just decision of the case.'

This power was not exercised by the Trial Court or the High Court, the Apex Court observed:  

“In the present case, unfortunately the Trial Court as well as the High Court failed to exercise their powers under the aforesaid provisions to summon the witnesses of the charge-sheet to prove the police papers. Despite applications being filed to summon persons who were not shown as witnesses to the charge-sheet, the Trial Court repeatedly rejected the said applications in 2006 and again in 2008 on the flimsy grounds that were not named in the charge-sheet or that the Public Prosecutor had not filed such application in gross violation of Section 311 CrPC.”

Other reports about the judgment can be read here.