Whether a Public Prosecutor is obligated in every case to conduct a criminal trial in a manner so as to obtain the conviction of the accused overlooking the possible innocence of the accused?
Rule 16 of Part VI of Chapter II of Bar Council of India Rules provides that ‘An advocate appearing for prosecution in a criminal trial shall so conduct the prosecution that it does not lead to conviction of the innocent. The suppression of the material capable of establishing the innocence of the accused shall be scrupulously avoided.’ This implies a duty wide enough not just to avoid steering the conduct of prosecution to actualize the conviction of the innocent but also to desist from suppression of material beneficial to the accused. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shiv Kumar v. Hukum Chand with respect to the aforesaid has observed that a Public Prosecutor is not expected to show a thirst to reach the case in the conviction of the accused somehow or the other irrespective of the true facts involved in the case. The expected attitude of the Public Prosecutor while conducting prosecution must be couched in fairness not only to the court and to the investigating agencies but to the accused as well. If the accused is entitled to any legitimate benefit during the trial the Public Prosecutor should not scuttle/conceal it. On the contrary, it is the duty of the Public Prosecutor to winch it to the force and make it available to the accused. Even if the Defence Counsel overlooks it, the Public Prosecutor has the added responsibility to bring it to the notice of the court if it comes to his knowledge. A private counsel, if allowed a free hand to conduct the prosecution would focus on bringing the case to conviction even if it is not a fit case to be so convicted. That is the reason why Parliament applied a bridle on him and subjected his role strictly to the instructions given by the Public Prosecutor.