SHIV KUMAR Vs. HUKAM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is as well for the protection of accused persons in sessions trials (in India) that provision is made to have the case against him prosecuted only by a Public Prosecutor and not by a counsel engaged by the aggrieved private party. Fairness to the accused who faces the prosecution is the raison deter of the legislative insistence on that score.

(2.) In this case, appellant is aggrieved because a counsel engaged by him was not allowed by the High court to conduct prosecution in spite of obtaining a consent from the Public Prosecutor concerned. First respondent was the accused in the sessions trial wherein appellant wanted his counsel's active role to be played. Appellant and respondent are Advocates practicing at the same station. The grievance of the appellant developed in the following fact situation:

(3.) Appellant is the brother of five sisters, and the youngest of among them, Suman, had secured creditable academic laurels. She was given in marriage to Dr. Dinesh Kumar Gupta (the son of the respondent). But about 4 months after her marriage she met with a tragic death by burns. On a complaint lodged by the appellant, FIR under Section 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code was registered by the local police against the respondent. But after completion of the investigation a charge-sheet was laid against him for the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code.