Courts Should not be “Mere Tape Recorders,” Ruled the Supreme Court Regarding the Role of the Public Prosecutor

The Supreme Court ruled that courts must participate in the legal process and not merely serve as “mere tape recorders.” It also lamented the lack of “practically no effective and meaningful cross-examination” of opposing witnesses by public prosecutors during criminal appeals hearings.

The Supreme Court said that a judge must oversee the procedures to promote justice and that the court should effectively oversee the proceedings to ascertain the truth, even in cases where the prosecutor is lethargic or ineffective.

Observing the relationship between the public prosecution service and the judiciary as the cornerstone of the criminal justice system, the bench headed by the CJI said.

The three-judge bench comprising CJI, Justice Manoj Mishra, and Justice J B Pardiwala gave the judgment while upholding the conviction and life sentence awarded to a man for murdering his wife in 1995.

“It is the duty of the court to arrive at the truth and serve the ends of justice. The courts have to take a participatory role in the trial and not act as mere tape recorders to record whatever is being stated by the witnesses,” the bench said.

It stated that the major flaws and duty neglect of the prosecuting agency must be recognized by the court.

According to the bench, a judge must actively engage in the trial and obtain from the witnesses any information that he believes is required to make the right verdict in the proper context.

It stated that any crime committed against an individual is a crime against society as a whole, and that under these conditions, neither the trial court’s presiding officer nor the public prosecutor can afford to be careless or inattentive in any way.

The court stressed that in the appointment-making procedure such as for the post of public prosecutor, the only qualification criterion should be the merit of the person.

The bench observed that one of the judges’ natural counterparts in the trial processes as well as in the larger framework of managing the criminal justice system is the public prosecutor, who is in charge of carrying out prosecutions and has the ability to appeal court rulings.

It stated that the public prosecutor’s cross-examination of a hostile witness is essentially non-existent when it comes to criminal appeals, as the top court has observed over time. The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal brought by the convict against the May 2014 judgment of the High Court of Delhi, which upheld his conviction and the life sentence imposed on him by the trial court.

According to the prosecution, the appellant married in 1982 and in December 1995, he murdered his wife due to their strained marital relationship.

According to the police, the only eyewitness to the incident was his young daughter, who was five years old at the time of the incident.

The court noted that the minor had not supported the prosecution’s argument during the proceedings and was described as a witness of hostility.

While dismissing the appeal, the apex court noted it should not overlook the fact that the appellant had inflicted 12 blows with a knife on the deceased who was unarmed and helpless.

“For all the foregoing reasons, we have reached the conclusion that the high court committed an error in affirming the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court, holding the appellant guilty of the offence of murder of his wife,” the bench noted.

Noting that the appellant has undergone almost 11 years of imprisonment so far and is about 65 years old, the bench granted him liberty to prefer an appropriate representation addressed to the state government praying for remission of sentence.

It stated that within four weeks, the State shall examine and take an appropriate decision in accordance with the law when the applicant submits such a representation.

Team Profile

Mohit DalalNews Writer

Mohit Dalal, a graduate in Psychology currently pursuing a Master's degree in Journalism, is deeply intrigued by society and its norms. His interest in this captivating field has inspired a desire to excel in legal journalism. Mohit aspires to make significant contributions to the field of journalism, particularly in covering legal issues and related societal matters.

Latest entries

• English10 May 2024Sign of Relief to AAP as Supreme Court Grants Interim Bail to Kejriwal Till June 1
• English10 May 2024Letter to PM and Rahul Seeks Public Debate Between the Two
• English9 May 2024Are Unregistered Marriages Valid in India?
• English8 May 2024Top Court Hits Pay Dirt and Aspires Towards an Inclusive Society