Site Loader
Khairatabad, Hyderabad, Telangana, 500004
Khairatabad, Hyderabad, Telangana, 500004

Rohit Pradhan | 21st November 2019

Facts:

Appellate is wife of the deceased. Charges were made against Respondent 2 u/s 302 and 326 of IPC. While trial was in its continuing stage, she filed an application praying for following reliefs:

  1. To advance oral argument in support of question of law and fact only after the learned Public Prosecutor, if so required
  2. To raise objection in case any irrelevant question is put to any prosecution witness, if so required.
  3. To   examine   the   prosecution   witnesses   only   after   the learned Public Prosecutor, if so required;
  4. To cross ­examine the defence witnesses, if adduced, only after the learned Public Prosecutor, if so required;
  5. To assist the process of justice in accordance with law;
  6. Pass such further or other order(s) and/or direction(s) as it may deem fit and proper.” 

Held:

Though a victim can engage a private counsel to assist the prosecution, such counsel could not be given the right to make oral arguments or examine and cross-examine witness.

Victim’s counsel has a limited right when it comes to the assisting of prosecution, It only extends to suggesting questions to the Court or the prosecution, but not putting them by himself.

Supreme Court upheld the Calcutta High Court’s judgment dismissing the application by the victim, seeking permission for her counsel to cross-examine witness after the Public Prosecution.

Post Author: lexforti

Leave a Reply