in Crl.A.No.977 of 2022 S .S. SUNDAR , J.

and SUNDER MOHAN, J.

[Order of the Court was made by S.S. SUNDAR, J.

The de facto complainant, who was examined as P.W.1 and who is also the brother of the deceased, has filed this petition to implead himself as a party in the Criminal Appeal in Crl.A.No.977 of 2022.

2.The case of the petitioner is that, due to election dispute, his own brother by name Krishnamoorthy was done to death by the accused/respondents 1 and 2, on 24.04.2019. The respondents 1 and 2/A1 and A12 were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as follows:

Accused	Offence for which Convicted	Sentence
A1 & A2	Section 148 IPC	Simple Imprisonment for six months
	Section 341 IPC	Simple Imprisonment for one month
	Section 302 r/w. 149 IPC	Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years
A2	Section 342 IPC	Simple Imprisonment for three months
	Section 427 IPC	Simple Imprisonment for six months

Though the accused/respondents 1 and 2 were convicted and sentenced by the trial Court as above, the petitioner prays that he should be permitted to assist the Public Prosecutor by getting himself impleaded as party to the proceedings.

3.This petition is strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2/accused by relying upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rekha Murarka v. State of West Bengal and another [Criminal Appeal No.1727 of 2019, dated 20.11.2019]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, considering the scope of few provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, considered the petition that was filed by the victim before the trial Court under Section 301 r/w. proviso to Section 24(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, referring to the role of Public Prosecutor, has held as follows :

“12.1.The use of the term “assist” in the proviso to Section 24(8) is crucial, and implies that the victim’s counsel is only intended to have a secondary role qua the Public Prosecutor. This is supported by the fact that the original Amendment Bill to the CrPC had used the words “co-ordinate with the prosecution”. However, a change was later proposed and in the finally adopted version, the words “co-ordinate with” were substituted by “assist”.

This change is reflective of an intention to only assign a supportive role to the victim’s counsel, which would also be in consonance with the limited role envisaged for pleaders instructed by private persons under Section 301(2). In our considered opinion, a mandate that allows the victim’s counsel to make oral arguments and cross- examine witnesses goes beyond a mere assistive role, and constitutes a parallel prosecution proceeding by itself. Given the primacy accorded to the Public Prosecutor in conducting a trial, as evident from Section 225 and Section 301(2), permitting such a free hand would go against the scheme envisaged under the CrPC.

12.2.In some instances, such a wide array of functions may also have adverse consequences on the fairness of a trial. For instance, there may be a case where the Public Prosecutor may make a strategic call to examine some witnesses and leave out others. If the victim’s counsel insists upon examining any of the left out witnesses, it is possible that the evidence so brought forth may weaken the prosecution case. If given a free hand, in some instances, the trial may even end up becoming a vindictive battle between the victim’s counsel and the accused, which may further impact the safeguards put in place for the accused in criminal trials. These lapses may be aggravated by a lack of advocacy experience on the part of the victim’s counsel. In contrast, such dangers would not arise in the case of a Public Prosecutor, who is required to have considerable experience in the practice of law, and act as an independent officer of the Court. Thus, it is important to appreciate why the role of a victim’s counsel is made subject to the instruc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document