MAHABIR AND OTHERS VS STATE OF HARYANA CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 5560-5561 OF 2024

BENCH: Justice JB Pardiwala & Justice R Mahadevan

FACTS:

The case originates from an incident on March 13, 1998, during the Holi festival. Dharampal initially reported to the police that Om Parkash (complainant) and Om Parkash (deceased) had assaulted him and others, leading to a fall from the roof and injuries. However, no FIR was registered on his complaint. Instead, an FIR was filed the following day, implicating Mahabir and others, followed by another statement on March 15, 1998, naming Dharampal and Sri Chand as accused. During the trial, the Sessions Court acquitted Mahabir, Raj Kumar, Dayanand, and Krishan Kumar on October 5, 2005, citing a lack of evidence, while Dharampal was convicted under Section 302 IPC. The state did not appeal the acquittal. However, in 2006, the father of the deceased, Chandgi Ram, challenged the acquittal through a Criminal Revision Petition (CRR-194-2006), while Dharampal appealed his conviction. Over time, key parties, including Raj Kumar (2015), Chandgi Ram (2023), and Dharampal (2024), passed away. In August 2024, the High Court appointed legal aid counsel and, without properly serving notices, reversed the acquittal on August 27, 2024, leading to the arrest of the appellants. Consequently, they have now approached the Supreme Court in appeal.

ISSUES:

The chief issue in the present case revolved around the reversal of the acquittal by the High Court and whether the High Court committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and order of conviction in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 401 read with Section 397 of the CrPC. 

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING

The appeals are successful and have been allowed. The High Court's decision is overturned. The State Government must pay Rs 5,00,000 in compensation to each of the three appellants within four weeks. If the payment is not made on time, action will be taken against the responsible officer. The appellants' bail conditions are cancelled. The court will review the case again after four weeks to ensure the compensation has been paid.

The court observed that the Public Prosecutor failed in his duty by advocating for the death penalty instead of guiding the judges toward the correct legal position. While the High Court rejected this plea, the court highlighted concerns about the quality of public prosecutors in the country. It was noted that many State Governments appoint Assistant Government Pleaders (AGPs) and Additional Public Prosecutors (APPs) based on political considerations, favouritism, and nepotism, rather than merit. Such appointments compromise the competency, integrity, and professionalism of prosecutors, affecting the fairness of trials. The court reiterated that public prosecutors hold a public office with statutory duties, requiring high merit, objectivity, and fairness to ensure justice. A prosecutor’s role is not to secure a conviction at any cost but to assist the court in arriving at a just decision. This includes presenting a balanced case, disclosing all relevant evidence, and ensuring that the accused receives a fair trial. 

The court emphasized that the justice system depends on ethical and competent prosecutors, as they play a key role in safeguarding both public interest and individual rights. Judges, being human, may make errors under heavy workloads, and it is the duty of both the defence counsel and the prosecutor to correct them. In this case, the failure of the Public Prosecutor and State Government in ensuring a fair trial resulted in wrongful convictions, justifying the compensation awarded to the appellants. The court held the State Government accountable for its flawed appointments and directed it to compensate the appellants for the injustice suffered.

ANALYSIS:

The Supreme Court's ruling in this case underscores the importance of procedural fairness in criminal trials and highlights the misuse of revisional jurisdiction by the High Court. By reversing an acquittal without properly serving notices or ensuring due process, the High Court erred in law, leading to the wrongful incarceration of the appellants. The judgment reaffirms that revisional powers must be exercised cautiously and only in cases of  grave miscarriages of justice. The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the conviction and award compensation reflects its commitment to safeguarding fundamental rights and preventing judicial overreach. Additionally, the ruling brings attention to the declining standards in public prosecution due to politically motivated appointments. The court's criticism of favouritism and nepotism in appointing AGPs and APPs highlights the need for merit-based selections to ensure prosecutors uphold justice rather than seek convictions at any cost. By emphasizing the prosecutor’s duty to assist the court impartially, the judgment reinforces the ethical standards necessary for fair trials. The decision, therefore, serves as both a corrective measure for the present case and a broader call for reforms in the criminal justice system.