LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Rekha Murarka v. The State of West Bengal

Criminal Appeal · 2019 INSC 1269Decided 20 Nov 2019
Criminal Appeal No. 1727 of 2019
Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar · Justice Deepak Gupta

Background

The appellant's husband was allegedly stabbed to death in 2014, and she too was injured while trying to save him; a murder trial followed in the Calcutta Sessions Court. As the de facto complainant, she sought permission for her private lawyer to make oral arguments and cross-examine witnesses after the Public Prosecutor, relying on Section 301 read with the proviso to Section 24(8) of the CrPC. Both the Sessions Court and the Calcutta High Court rejected this request, holding that a Sessions trial must be conducted by the Public Prosecutor and a victim's counsel can only assist, not lead. She appealed to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's view that Section 225 CrPC mandates that a Public Prosecutor alone conducts a Sessions trial, and the proviso to Section 24(8) (allowing a victim to engage counsel) does not override this: a victim's counsel may only "assist" the prosecution, not "conduct" it. The Court held that, ordinarily, a victim's counsel should not be allowed to make oral arguments or examine/cross-examine witnesses directly; instead, they may route suggestions or questions through the Public Prosecutor, or in appropriate cases bring issues to the trial judge's attention (who may act under Section 311 CrPC/Section 165 Evidence Act). The Court reasoned this balance protects the fairness of trial and the accused's rights while still giving the victim a meaningful but channeled role. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, though the Court left open future case-by-case flexibility for Sessions judges to permit greater victim-counsel participation where justified.

Lesson Learnt

A crime victim (or their family) has the right to hire a lawyer to assist in a criminal prosecution, but that lawyer generally cannot personally argue or cross-examine witnesses in a Sessions trial: the Public Prosecutor remains in charge, and the victim's counsel's role is to assist by suggesting questions/points through the prosecutor or the judge.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case