Sovaran Singh Prajapati vs The State of Uttar Pradesh

Held: Trial Court should be an active participant to seek out the truth in a given set of circumstances to ensure that a balance is struck between the role and responsibility of prosecution as also the rights of the accused – The Court’s duty is not to merely record evidence by overlooking the object of the trial i.e. to extract the truth – The Trial Court ought to have observed and halted the proceedings, given the absence of the counsel for the defence at crucial stages of the trial; absence of adequate opportunity to examine and cross-examine the defence witnesses; and the improper, inadequate and incomplete examination of the accused under Section 313 CrPC – The course adopted by the Trial Court was mechanical and in complete ignorance of the rights of the accused and objective of the trial. [Paras 15, 15.2, 16] Appointment of Amicus Curiae – Standing of Amicus and role to be played by Amicus needs to be indicated by Trial Court in its Orders:

Held: Trial Court must indicate the standing of the person appointed as Amicus Curiae. Trial Court should also indicate the role played by the Amicus in the Trial — Whether the Amicus was appointed to assist the Court or was he appointed to aid the representation of the accused? Such indications enable the Appellate Court to gain a full view of the matter, including being able to ascertain compliance of essential aspects such as continuous and qualitative legal assistance of the accused. [Para 17]

Duty of the Appellate Court – Capital Punishment Cases – Heightened Responsibility:

Held: An Appellate Court has to appreciate the evidence on record, after duly summoning the record of the Courts below, and then arrive at its own finding, irrespective of the order under challenge before it being of conviction or acquittal – In Capital Punishment cases, where a person’s life hangs in the balance, the High Court’s responsibility is heightened, and it must carefully examine all relevant and material circumstances before upholding the conviction and confirming the death sentence. [Paras 18, 19] Duty of the Prosecutor – Examine all possible angles – Collect all relevant evidence:

Held: In a criminal trial, unless the law otherwise requires, the onus of proof never shifts, and always lies upon the Prosecution – The job of the prosecution is to drive home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but at the same time, the prosecutor cannot forget that his first and foremost duty is that of an officer of the Court – The prosecuting agency has a responsibility to examine all possible angles, collect all relevant evidence and then produce the same before the Court for determination of guilt or lack thereof – The prosecutor in the present case seemed to have missed his duty as an officer of the Court by failing to bring to the notice of the Court that the circumstances of change of counsel; belated appointment of Amicus Curiae / defence counsel; closure of opportunity to cross-examine; recording of evidence in the absence of defence counsel contravened the principle of a fair trial. [Paras 20, 21]

Purpose of Cross-Examination – Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569 relied upon:

Held: In Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569, the Supreme Court highlighted that the purpose of cross-examination is to: a) call into question the credibly the evidentiary value of the witness; b) bring out such facts that may favour the cross-examining lawyer’s client; and c) to establish the said witness is unworthy of belief and that his credit stands impeached. [Para 26] Section 311 CrPC – Applicability of – Explained: Held: The power of the Court under Section 311 CrPC is couched in the widest terms possible with no express limitation thereon – The Section is divided into two parts — The first part being directory and the second part mandatory – It is not only the prerogative but also the duty of the Court to summon and examine a witness who is absolutely necessary in the interest of justice – The power is to be exercised judiciously, both for the benefit of the prosecution and the defence, and could be exercised at any stage of the proceedings – This power under Section 311 is not to be exercised to fill up a lacuna in the case of the prosecution – If a witness so called gives evidence against the complainant, the latter should be given an opportunity to cross-examine, a right arising not under Section 311, but under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – The order rejecting the application to recall witnesses records that the application under Section 311 was rejected and that defence evidence would be allowed only if the witness was produced on the next date – Such a summary rejection is unjustified, and the application should have been allowed. [Paras 30, 30.1, 32] Examination – Section 313 CrPC – Application of, explained – Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 609 and Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973)

2 SCC 793:

Held: The principles governing Section 313 CrPC, as summarised in Raj Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 SCC OnLine SC 609 and in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793, state that it is the duty of the Trial Court to put each material circumstance appearing in the evidence against the accused specifically, distinctively and separately – The object of examination under section 313 CrPC is to enable the accused to explain any circumstance appearing against him in the evidence – Failure to put material circumstances amounts to a serious irregularity and may vitiate the trial if it causes prejudice – Where such irregularity is curable, the appellate court can question the accused on the material circumstance not earlier put, or the case can be remanded to the Trial Court for recording a supplementary statement – While deciding if prejudice is caused, delay in raising the contention is only one of several factors to be considered – In the present case, factors summarised in Raj Kumar were not followed – All incriminating circumstances were not put to the accused and general, sweeping questions were employed, which were only denied – It is incumbent upon the prosecutor to aid the Court in preparing questions to be put to the accused – It has been held in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade (supra) that prejudice can be caused if the statements are not properly recorded – There is adequate possibility that the appellant has been prejudiced. [Paras 32, 32.2] International Law – Fairness in criminal procedure: Held: The Universal Declaration of human Rights, 1948 records guarantee for fairness in criminal procedure in articles 10 and

11 – Article 14 of the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights, 1996 which was ratified by India in 1979, guarantees equality to all persons before the law – The rights of the accused under article 67 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court entitle the accused to basic protections under the law, even in the cases of gravest and most heinous crimes. [Paras 33, 33.1, 33.2]