A victim's counsel in a criminal trial is restricted to assisting the Public Prosecutor and cannot independently conduct the prosecution or introduce new evidence at the final argument stage without the Public Prosecutor's concurrence.

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528 BNSS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.03.2026 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE COURT OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE FOR POCSO CASE (FTSC-I) AT MANDYA IN SPL.C.C.NO.223/2022, ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.120/2022 OF MADDUR POLICE STATION, FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 354-D, 376, 376(2)(n), 376(3), 450, 366, 506, 420 OF IPC AND SEC.4, 6 AND 12 OF THE POCSO ACT AND PERMIT THE PETITIONER/VICTIM COUNSEL TO BE HEARD BY THE LEARNED TRIAL COURT WHILE ASSISTING THE PROSECUTION AND PARTICIPATE IN PROCEDURAL ASPECTS OF THE TRIAL.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner, the de facto complainant is before this Court calling in question an order dated 27.03.2026, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge for POCSO Case (FTSC-I), Mandya, in Spl.C.C.No.223/2022 (arising out of Crime No.120/2022), by which the concerned Court rejects the application of the petitioner seeking permission to engage a counsel of her choice, assist the prosecution and to participate in the proceedings.

Heard Sri Chandrashekar R.P., learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Anoop Kumar, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri Lakshmikanth K., learned counsel for respondent No.2.

Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

A case in Spl.C.C.No.223/2022 is being tried before the Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge for POCSO Case (FTSC-I), Mandya, arising out of Crime No.120/2022 of Maddur Police Station, for offences punishable under Sections 354D, 376, 376(2)(n), 376(3), 450, 366, 506 and 420 of the IPC and Sections 4, 6 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The issue is not with regard to the merit of the matter. An application is preferred by the victim – de facto complainant seeking permission to engage services of a counsel and trial to be conducted at the hands of the said counsel. The concerned Court rejects the application by the following order:

“7. Now the points that arise for my consideration are:

i. Whether the application filed by the victim's counsel under Section 294 Cr.P.C. is maintainable?

ii. Whether the documents can be taken on record at this stage?

iii. What Order?

8. My findings on the above points are as under:

Point No. i: In the Negative

Point No. ii: In the Negative

Point No. iii: As per final order for the following:

Reasons

9. Point No.i: It is not in dispute that the application is filed by the learned counsel for the victim independently and not by the Public Prosecutor. As per Section 301(2) Cr.P.C. and proviso to Section 24(8) Cr.P.C., the role of the victim's counsel is limited to assisting the Public Prosecutor.

10. In Rekha Murarka case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the victim's counsel cannot conduct prosecution independently and must act under the directions of the Public Prosecutor. In the present case the learned Special Public Prosecutor has not filed the application. There is no concurrence from the Special Public Prosecutor as well. Therefore, the application filed independently by the victim's counsel exceeds the permissible scope of assistance and is not maintainable.

11. Point No.ii: Section 294 Cr.P.C. is intended to facilitate admission or denial of documents already on record so as to dispense with formal proof. Section 294 Cr.P.C. is extracted hereunder:

Section. 294 Cr.P.C:No formal proof of certain documents:

(1)Where any document is filed before any Court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution of the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.

(2)The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.

(3)Where the genuineness of an