Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 666 (ORI)

Bhagabat Pradhan v. State Of Odisha

2019-12-16

A.K.MISHRA

body2019
JUDGMENT A.K.Mishra, J. - Under the situation that a Sessions Case under Sec. 302 I.P.C. has been stayed since 2016, the matter on merit is taken up for disposal. It is a step forward to make the right to speedy trial more meaningful and realisable. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State. 3. The petitioner claiming to be an injured-witness has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the order dated 13.01.2016(Annexure-3) passed by the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Puri in S.T. Case No. 22/525 of 2007/2003 for the charge under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307/149 I.P.C. 4. There is no dispute that opposite party Nos.2 to 26 are facing trial. 5. The impugned order dated 13.01.2016 (Annexure-3) reveals that the present petitioner-Bhagabat Pradhan was a witness in the calendar statement and at the stage of accused statement, Addl. Public Prosecutor filed a petition under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to examine him. It was allowed, but the witness complaining head reeling wanted time and he could not be examined subsequently. Learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge closed the case and posted the case for accused statement to be recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 6. In such backdrop the said witness Bhagabat Pradhan is now the petitioner in this case under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 7. His sole prayer is that he may be permitted to be examined in the Sessions triable case. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel submits that the State has neither filed any proceeding in this Court challenging the impugned order nor wants to examine the said witness, as he has not received any instruction from the Superintendent of Police, Puri. Fact remains that a witness in a Sessions triable case, knocks the door of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow him to be examined and in that process the proceeding of trial has been kept in abeyance since last three years. 8. In the case of Rekha Murarka Vrs. The State of West Bengal and Anr; in Criminal Appeal No. 1727 of 2019 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7848 of 2019,vide judgment dated 20.11.2019, Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs-12.2 and 12.4 has held as follows:- "12.2 In some instances, such a wide array of functions may also have adverse consequences on the fairness of a trial. The State of West Bengal and Anr; in Criminal Appeal No. 1727 of 2019 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7848 of 2019,vide judgment dated 20.11.2019, Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs-12.2 and 12.4 has held as follows:- "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 instructions of the Public Prosecutor, who occupies a prime position by virtue of the increased responsibilities shouldered by him with respect to the conduct of a criminal trial. Xx xx xx 12.4 In this regard, given that the modalities of each case are different, we find that the extent of assistance and the manner of giving it would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Though we cannot detail and discuss all possible scenarios that may arise during a criminal prosecution, we find that a victim's counsel should ordinarily not be given the right to make oral arguments or examine and cross-examine witnesses. As stated in Section 301(2), the private party's pleader is subject to the directions of the Public Prosecutor. In our considered opinion, the same principle should apply to the victim's counsel under the proviso to Section 24(8), as it adequately ensures that the interests of the victim are represented. As stated in Section 301(2), the private party's pleader is subject to the directions of the Public Prosecutor. In our considered opinion, the same principle should apply to the victim's counsel under the proviso to Section 24(8), as it adequately ensures that the interests of the victim are represented. If the victim's counsel feels that a certain aspect has gone unaddressed in the examination of the witnesses or the arguments advanced by the Public Prosecutor, he may route any questions or points through the Public Prosecutor himself. This would not only preserve the paramount position of the Public Prosecutor under the scheme of the Cr.P.C., but also ensure that there is no inconsistency between the case advanced by the Public Prosecutor and the victim's counsel." 9. In the wake of above law, the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 13.01.2016(Anexure-3) passed by the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Puri in S.T. Case No. 22/525 of 2007/2003 does not merit any interference. 10. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands dismissed.