Right of victim to assist prosecution under Section 24(8) CrPC not available in appeal by convict: Karnataka High Court

In a significant decision, the Karnataka High Court has held the right to assist the prosecution under Section 24(8) of CrPC is not available to the victim in an appeal by the convict under chapter XXIX of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) [Rajesjwari Shetty vs State of Karnataka]..A Division Bench of Justices G Narendar and MI Arun ruled that Section 389 of Chapter XXIX of CrPC does not confer any right on the victim to seek impleadment during the consideration of the application for suspension of sentence in an appeal preferred by the convict."We have no hesitation in holding that the code of Criminal Procedure Chapter XXIX does not confer any right on the victim to seek impleadment in an appeal preferred by the convict. Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure placed in Chapter XXIX does not confer any right of audience on victim in and during the consideration of the application for suspension of sentence in an appeal preferred by the convict. We hold that the right to assist the prosecution under 24(8) is not available to the victim in an appeal by convict under Chapter XXIX," the judgment said. .The Court was hearing a set of applications seeking permission for the de-facto complainant to come on record as an intervenor and to be impleaded as a party in the appeals preferred by the accused. The appellants had preferred the appeals aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated June 6, 2021 passed by the court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Udupi.The appellants had been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302 (murder), 120B (criminal conspiracy) and 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The de facto complainant wanted to be impleaded in the said appeal owing to inadequacy of the sentence. .Appearing for the defacto complainant, Senior counsel Hashmath Pasha contended that concept of victimology and the right of victims has been greatly expanded by the Supreme Court as well as the High Court. Today, the victims are vested with a right to assist the prosecution and thereby ensure and avert a mis-trial. This has greatly helped in averting the acquittals of the accused on account of minor lapses in the case of the prosecution, it was submitted.In fact, the victim’s lawyer is on an equal footing as the public prosecutor, especially after the amendment in 2009 to CrPC which introduced provision to enable victim's lawyer to assist the public prosecutor, it was added.On the other hand, the senior counsel appearing for the appellant/accused relied on section Section 24 (1) of the CrPC to contend that an appeal is a distinct proceeding and that the defence counsel is only intended to have a secondary role to that of the public prosecutor. It was submitted that a public prosecutor is not expected to show a thirst to ensure the case concludes with a conviction, thereby ensuring fairness to both parties in a trial. It was further highlighted that if a counsel engaged by a victim is allowed to conduct the prosecution, it would turn adversarial and the counsel would attempt to secure a conviction by hook or crook. In this regard, reliance was placed by the appellants on the judgement titled Shiv Kumar vs Hukam Chand. .The Court opined that the instant application prima facie called for an interpretation in the background of the following provisions: - Section 24 ( Constitution of Regular Courts and Offices that is the offices of the Public Prosecutor, Additional Public Prosecutor and Special Public Prosecutor), - Section 301 (general provisions as to enquiries and trials), - Section 372 and 389 (appeals arising out of the judgments of the trial Courts). .Subsequently, after taking a number of judicial precedents into account, the Court was of the view that in matters involving interpretation of criminal statute, the rule of strict or literal interpretation is to be followed. "The Courts have categorically held where on a plain reading of the provision, the clear and compelling nature of the language used in the provision gives a particular meaning or where there is no ambiguity in the provision, liberal interpretation of the same is impermissible," the Court opined. Specific regard was placed on the 2020 judgment of Supreme Court in Rekha Murarka v. State of West Bengal..Further, the Court also examined the reasons and objects for the Amendment Act of 2009 to conclude that the law makers intended to give or confer upon victims only “certain rights”."It makes it obvious that the law makers were clear that they intended to give or confer specific rights and it was not their intent to tweak or bring about a complete transformation in the criminal justice dispensation system. This our opinion, is fortified by the Amendments proposed by way of insertions and the Proviso to sub section 8 of Section 24 came to be inserted. It speaks of permitting the victim to engage an advocate of his or her choice to assist the prosecution," the Court said.The legislature only intended to enable the victim's counsel to assist the prosecution and not confer any independent role on such counsel, the Court said..Even with regard to the proviso to Section 372, the Court opined that a right to appeal has been conferred on the victim, which is again, not an absolute one but a restricted one."Thus, is this limited right under the proviso to Section 372 and the words “assist the prosecution” occurring in the proviso to Section 24(8) are juxtaposed with the words “certain rights” used in paragraph 2 of the statement of objects and reasons of the amending act 5 of 2009, it becomes clear that the intent of the law makers was only to confer a limited right on the victim."Thus, the victim has only specific rights - to assist the prosecution before the trial court and to prefer an appeal only on specific grounds before the appellate Court..In view of these, the Court rejected the applications. [Read Judgement]