Summary
A victim sought permission for her counsel to participate independently in examination, cross-examination and arguments in a Sessions trial. The Supreme Court held that victim’s counsel may assist the prosecution generally, not only a Special Public Prosecutor, but must preserve the Public Prosecutor’s primary role. Suggestions should ordinarily be routed through the prosecutor and, if important matters remain unaddressed, through the judge. Independent parallel prosecution was not permitted.
Issues
- Whether a victim’s counsel could assist only a Special Public Prosecutor.
- What participation was permissible in a Sessions trial.
Provisions considered
- Sections 24(8) proviso, 225 and 301, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The complementary provisions permit court-authorised assistance to prosecution generally while retaining the Public Prosecutor’s primary control of the Sessions prosecution. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12.1, 12.4)
Held
- The victim’s counsel may assist prosecution generally; the proviso is not confined to cases conducted by a Special Public Prosecutor. (¶¶ 10, 11)
- Assistance is supportive and subject to the prosecutor’s directions. Ordinarily, it does not confer a right to oral arguments or direct examination and cross-examination of witnesses. Its extent depends on the case. (¶¶ 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4)
- Questions or points should be routed through the Public Prosecutor. Important matters left unaddressed may be put before the judge, who can consider invoking statutory powers; counsel cannot put the questions independently. (¶¶ 12.4, 12.5)
Result
Appeal disposed of, sustaining refusal of permission for the victim’s counsel to cross-examine witnesses after the Public Prosecutor. The Sessions Judge could permit necessary future assistance within the limits explained by the Court.