The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside the conviction of three men who were convicted by the Punjab & Haryana High Court almost two decades after they were acquitted by the trial court in a murder case [Mahabir & Ors v. State of Haryana]..Significantly, the Bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan expressed grave concerns over the quality of Public Prosecutors appearing before High Courts across the country.While lamenting the manner in which the acquittal in this case was overturned based on the Public Prosecutor's arguments, the Court said,"Such is the standard of the Public Prosecutors in the High Courts of the country. This is bound to happen when the State Governments across the country appoint AGPs and APPs in their respective High Courts solely on political considerations. Favouritism and nepotism is one additional factor for compromising merit. This judgement is a message to all the State Governments that the AGPs and APPs in respective High Courts should be appointed solely on the merit of the person. The State Government owes a duty to ascertain the ability of the person; how proficient the person is in law, his overall background, his integrity etc...".The Court expressed its shock that instead of assisting the High Court and pointing out the correct position of law, the Public Prosecutor in this case went to the extent of suggesting capital punishment for the appellants. It went on to say,"Judges are human beings and at times they do commit mistakes. The sheer pressure of work at times may lead to such errors. At the same time, the defence counsel as well as the Public Prosecutor owes a duty to correct the Court if the Court is falling in some error and for all this, we hold the State Government responsible. It is the State Government who appointed the concerned Public Prosecutor."It thus directed the State of Haryana to pay compensation of ₹5 lakh to each of the appellants who spent over three months in jail 20 years after their acquittal in the case..The Court was hearing appeals in a murder case against a Punjab and Haryana High Court judgment dated August 27, 2024 which overturned the acquittal of the three appellants by the trial court in 2005.The trial court had held two co-accused guilty of the crime, whereas the other four, including the three appellants before the Supreme Court, came to be acquitted. The State did not appeal the acquittal of the three appellants. However, the father of the deceased filed a revision petition before the High Court to challenge the acquittal of the three appellants.In revision, the High Court held all the three appellants guilty of the alleged offence and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment. This prompted the appellants to move the Supreme Court..In an earlier order passed in this case last month, the apex court had said that it failed to understand how the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction could have converted the finding of acquittal into one of conviction. In that order, the Court had also granted bail to the three appellants."There is one another feature which has disturbed us. According to the learned counsel the High Court proceeded ex-parte without issuing notice to the three appellants herein in the revision petition, who had already been acquitted by the Trial Court," the Bench had observed.Before the High Court passed its judgment, the revisionist as well as the man who was convicted by the trial court passed away. This information was not brought to the Court's attention by the State. While deciding appeals, the Court said,"...it is as clear as a noonday that the High Court committed an egregious error in reversing the acquittal and passing an order of conviction in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction and that too without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellants herein.".The Court also took pains to clarify that the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - which allows a victim to file an appeal against an order acquitting the accused, or convicting them for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation - is not retrospective in nature, contrary to what the State argued."...it is very much clear that the amendment so made in Section 372 CrPC by adding a proviso in the year 2009 creating a substantive right of appeal is not retrospective in nature...It is, therefore, clear that in the year 2006 when the judgement of acquittal was passed, the de facto complainant had no right to challenge the impugned order passed in 2006 by way of filing the appeal," the judgment stated..The judges stressed that the criminal law enforcement system, in addition to prosecuting offenders, must also protect rights and freedoms and convict only the guilty."The prosecutor must recognize these different and competing interests. He should strike a fair balance between the competing interests of convicting the guilty, protecting citizens' rights and freedoms and protecting the public from criminals. Prosecutors should ensure that prosecutions are conducted in a diligent, competent and fair manner.""A Public Prosecutor is not expected to show a thirst to reach the case in the conviction of the accused somehow or the other irrespective of the true facts of the case...If an accused is entitled to any legitimate benefit during trial, the Public Prosecutor should not scuttle/conceal it. On the contrary, it is the duty of the Public Prosecutor to winch it to the fore and make it available to the accused," the Court added..While ordering the release of the appellants, the Court said that it would take action against the State if it did not award the compensation within four weeks..Advocate Indira Unninayar appeared for the appellants..[Read order]
