Criminal Procedure Code

Rekha Murarka v. State of West Bengal

(2020) 2 SCC 474

Facts

Rekha Murarka’s husband was murdered, and she was herself injured in the same occurrence.
The prosecution was being conducted by the Public Prosecutor before the Sessions Court.
Murarka engaged a private advocate under the proviso to Section 24(8) CrPC.
She sought permission for her advocate to:
make oral submissions;
examine prosecution witnesses;
object during evidence;
and cross-examine defence witnesses independently.
The trial court limited the advocate’s role.
The High Court affirmed that the prosecution had to remain under the Public Prosecutor’s control.
Murarka approached the Supreme Court, arguing that victim participation would be meaningless unless her lawyer could act independently. ( )

What does it mean for the victim’s advocate to “assist” the prosecution?
Whether the victim’s lawyer may conduct a parallel prosecution during a Sessions trial.

Under Section 225 CrPC, a Sessions trial is conducted by the Public Prosecutor.
The proviso to Section 24(8) permits the victim to engage an advocate to assist the prosecution.
“Assist” does not ordinarily mean independently control:
examination;
cross-examination;
objections;
or trial strategy.
The Public Prosecutor has a public duty:
to act fairly;
to place relevant evidence;
and not to seek conviction at any cost.
A victim’s lawyer may:
provide information and documents;
suggest questions;
identify omissions;
assist the Public Prosecutor;
and submit written arguments under Section 301(2), where applicable.
The trial court may permit limited oral participation in appropriate circumstances.
The corresponding BNSS provision is Section 18(8).

The Court recognised that victims historically had too little involvement in criminal trials.
The 2008 amendment was intended to improve that position.
However, allowing the victim’s lawyer to independently conduct every part of the prosecution could create:
conflicting strategies;
repetitive questioning;
unfair pressure on witnesses;
and loss of the prosecutor’s neutral public role.
The victim understandably seeks conviction and may be personally affected.
The Public Prosecutor must consider:
the victim’s interest;
the accused’s right to a fair trial;
and the public interest in accurate adjudication.
Therefore, the victim’s advocate should ordinarily channel:
proposed questions;
evidentiary concerns;
and submissions through the Public Prosecutor.
If the prosecutor unreasonably refuses to raise a genuinely material matter, the victim’s advocate may draw the issue to the trial judge’s attention.
The judge may then permit suitable participation.
The arrangement ensures that “assistance” is real but does not create two separate prosecutions.
Written submissions after evidence also give the victim an independent opportunity to place the legal position before the court.

The Supreme Court held that the victim’s advocate does not possess an unrestricted right to conduct a parallel prosecution.
The lawyer may actively assist the Public Prosecutor and may receive additional permission from the trial court where justice requires it.
The judgment balances meaningful victim participation with the Public Prosecutor’s statutory control and duty of fairness. ( )