Real Role of Public Prosecutor in Criminal trial

INTRODUCTION

• India being a welfare state works for the interest of masses

• The criminal justice system of any country is the backbone of its welfare.

• Indian criminal systems have following functionaries- police, prosecutors, defence counsel, judges and magistrates and prison authorities.

• Prosecutors are any one who are described under section 24 and 25 of the Criminal procedure code, 1973

SCOPE OF STUDY

• Prosecutor, even though being a vital part of the criminal justice system of this country, are pitied against the competent defence bars.

• This study talks about roles and duties of the prosecutors, attemts for assistence and recommendations needed.

• The whole study is described under the broad head as – pre tiral, trial and post trial roles of the prosecutor

• Prosecutor ethics are also talked upon

TRIAL

INVESTIGATION

• Investigation prcedes any trial and from here the real role of the prosecutor should start from

• The polic is the chief investigation agency – ther exists threats of abuse of power

• On the other hand police needs power and freedom to investigate

• A system of check and balance needed• The lesh oer police is given to magistrate in

various EU countries while to prosecuting attorney in scottland

• Conditon in India patetic nad neeeds review

BAIL

• It is a right to the accused • If the case is less grave – court grants

bail without informing prosecutor.• In graver cases court notifies PP at the

time of bail hearing• For first time PP geets to know case

facts• For effective process police should

transfer to PP all relevant information – strength of evidence- legality of arrest

• However nothing like this happen• No provision of prompt transmisiion –

lack of co ordination for swift disposal• Reforms needed

WITNESS EXAMINATION

• Being public servant police expected to be honest an d accurate

• The stark reality shows rude and misbehavior with witnessing and even manipulation.

• The courts have no connection to check the abuse of power

• Deductible that police is unreliable also from section 161 and 162 of Cr.P.C

• No attempt in law yet to connect prosecutor with checks of police abuse – scrutinize investigation and police diaries.

• Strongly recommended

CHARGE SELECTION

• Precise information to the accused for prepration of defence – esence of fair trial

• Charges, thus, formed with great precision

• Appropriate charging is to be emphasised and also a mandate undes section 226 of Cr.P.C – to open the case, tell about evidences to be presented etc.

• ‘the prosecution must stand on its own legs and not take advantage of the weakness of the defence. The onus is to prove the story it alleges beyond reasonable doubt.’ – Bhgirath v. St of MP. AIR 1976

TRIAL

• The role of prosecution changes with country to country

• In coutries other than the anglo-american model – presiding judge examins the witness

• Prosecutor might ask a few questions but that too is hesistant.

• Chinas CJS is more complicated• Indian PP’s roles in trial are –

OPENING SPEECH

• The PP has the duty to open the case stating the nature of case and charges framed.

• Section 226, Cr.P.C, in cases of trial before Sessions Court, Section 239 Cr.P.C., in cases of trial of warrant cases before Magistrate Court provide for it.

• Opening speech of prosecutor is to acquaint the• court and to avoid any vagueness in the case

• In practice, the prosecutors do not make any opening speeches in most of the cases.

• equally rare to see any prosecutor asserting his statutory obligation to make an opening statement.

• The fallout of it is that the prosecutor and the presiding judge do not know whether the accused has any specific line of defence.

• Facilitates the disuse of legal practice.

• Resultantly, there are more denial pleas and production of avoidable evidence, eating up public time ad clogging up court cases.

READING OUT CHARGES

• Court frames charges and reads them to the accused – accused entitled to plead his version of case or refuse

• Section 230 Cr.P.C provides for it• Plea tendered by the acuused is

tendered to the court and not the prosecution.

PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AND BURDEN OF PROOF

• The general principal is that the conduct of every individual is in accordance of the law

• Indian CJS has two cardinal rules - person innocent unless proved guilty - burden of proof on the prosecution (beyond resonable doubt)• Indian democracy – people are

king – king does no wrong- state to prove beyong RD

PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE

STATEMENT OF PROSECUTOR

• A PP in India can make significant statements about the case, witness and evidence.

• Underlying principle – PP expected to produce evidence in support of the prosecution and not in derogation of the prosecution case.

• Prosecutor can also skip to examine some of the witnesses cited on his side

• after recording the evidence of a witness running contrary to his theory he could cross examination after seeking as provided in Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

• These powers are vested to overcome the evidence of certain witnesses who speak one thing at the beginning and another at the end (st of bihar v. lalu prasad)

• It is very rare that an Indian prosecutor makes any such statements to court.

• Prosecutor’s failure an indicator to their total apathy to act honestly and courageously

POST TRIAL• 1). The procedure which is to govern the

imposition of Sentence. 2). The procedure that governs the making of an Appeal.

SENTENCING

• punishment should be suitable• Question is the guidance of PP in

sentencing• Court invites statements to convict by PP• Prosecutors responsibilty to formulate

charges• Ability to withhold social background of

accused

PLEA BARGAINING

• a mutually satisfactory disposition is arrived at between the accused and the victim