In a scathing critique of how state governments appoint Public Prosecutors, the Supreme Court has overturned the conviction of three men who were found guilty nearly two decades after their acquittal in a murder case.
A bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan delivered the ruling, highlighting how political favoritism and nepotism in prosecutor appointments have compromised the quality of legal advocacy in high courts across the country.
“This is bound to happen when state governments appoint Additional Government Pleaders (AGPs) and Assistant Public Prosecutors (APPs) based solely on political considerations. Merit is overlooked, and justice is jeopardized,” the Court remarked, adding that prosecutors must be chosen based on legal proficiency, integrity, and overall competence.
The case involved a 2005 trial court ruling that acquitted three of the accused while convicting two others. The state did not challenge their acquittal, but the deceased’s father later filed a revision petition in the Punjab & Haryana High Court. In 2024, the High Court overturned the acquittal and sentenced the three men to life imprisonment.
The Supreme Court expressed shock at the conduct of the prosecution in the High Court, stating that instead of aiding the court in understanding the legal nuances, the Public Prosecutor actively pushed for capital punishment. “Judges, being human, may err under the pressure of work. It is the duty of both the defense and the prosecution to assist the Court in arriving at a just decision,” the bench observed, holding the State accountable for appointing an ill-prepared prosecutor.
The Court further pointed out that the High Court had proceeded ex parte—without issuing notice to the accused—before convicting them. Additionally, the revision petitioner and one of the convicted men had passed away before the judgment, but this crucial fact was not brought to the High Court’s attention.
Clarifying the legal position, the Supreme Court ruled that the 2009 amendment to Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which grants victims the right to appeal acquittals, is not retrospective. Since the original trial court ruling came in 2005, the complainant had no legal standing to challenge it.
Stressing that criminal prosecution should be about fairness rather than securing convictions at any cost, the Court criticized prosecutors who suppress evidence favorable to the accused. “A Public Prosecutor is not expected to be obsessed with securing a conviction at all costs. If an accused has a legitimate legal benefit, it must be brought to light,” the ruling emphasized.
As a corrective measure, the Supreme Court ordered the immediate release of the appellants and directed the State of Haryana to pay ₹5 lakh in compensation to each of them within four weeks, warning of further action if the payment was delayed.