Comment

There are legitimate reasons to bring on par the victims of crime with the accused persons who have been bestowed with the constitutional right to have competent lawyers of their choice to put up the defense against the prosecution.

Though this proposition may sound strange to some, but it’s also a fact that the victims of crime or complainants alleging serious offence have least say in the entire trial in which they alone have the biggest stake.

Who should be the counsel on behalf of the state to prosecute an accused is decided mechanically by the state administration. It has been felt that due to the ineffective arguments put forth by a prosecutor most of the criminal cases fall apart, leaving the victims in the lurch and accused persons smiling all the way.

It’s trite the right to make available a lawyer to an accused who is poor in a criminal case and fair hearing are part of the fundamental right. But there’s no legal sanctity accorded to a complainant’s right to have a lawyer of his choice. If the state can pay for the counsel of accused, why can’t it extend the same relief to the millions of victims of crime?

State is under constitutional obligation to protect the personal liberty and life of the citizens. If it fails to fulfill this basic duty towards the tax payers, it owes the obligation to ensure that a trial is conducted through a counsel in which the complainant has full faith. The equity demands it for a fair play.

Recently, the Supreme Court asserted that accused persons have a “right to a fair trial by a competent court in the spirit of the right to life and personal liberty’’. Ironically, this salutary pronouncement is restricted to the accused. It doesn’t talk of the plight of people who are suspected to have been made victims by the accused.

At least six years ago, the gross mishandling of cases by the state-appointed prosecutors (Gujarat riot cases) had come to light and the top court ordered retrial and that too outside the state. That was because the court felt that in a criminal case the fate of the proceedings can not always be left entirely in the hands of the parties. Crime is a public wrong in breach and violation of public rights and duties, which affects the whole community. One presumes for good reason that in the light of this ruling it’s more important that complainants are armed with effective prosecution tools.

Until then, the role of trial court judges assumes great importance. They can’t be mere spectators but they are expected to act effectively to ensure that injustice isn’t done to the complainant also.

Be that as it may, so long complainants are denied the right to effectively intervene in the investigation and prosecution, the often asserted equality to all would be seen that the criminal justice system is titled in favour of the suspected criminals.