CASE COMMENT: SUNIL KUMAR PAL VS.

PHOTA SHEIKH AND ORS

BY: M.SAVITHRI
2ND YEAR, B.A.LL.B [HONS]
Case Study On Sunil Kumar Pal V. Phota Sheikh And Ors., AIR 1984 SC 1591

1 2 3 4

Incident Legal Proceedings: Trial Issues Witness Protection:

5 6 7
Judicial Failures Supreme Court
Intervention Outcome
 Incident:
In 1975, the appellant's younger brother was murdered. The police, allegedly influenced by political
factors, conducted a biased investigation.
Legal Proceedings
After 14 months, charges were filed against nine people for various
serious offenses.
Trial Issues
The appellant, residing in the UK, faced difficulties in engaging with the legal process. The appointed
prosecutor didn't adequately represent the prosecution's interests.
Witness Protection
Witnesses faced intimidation, and the court failed to ensure their
safety.
Judicial Failures
Despite complaints and appeals, the trial proceeded unfairly. The prosecutor even sided
with the accused.
Supreme Court Intervention
The Supreme Court recognized the trial's unfairness and ordered a retrial with proper legal
representation and witness protection.

Outcome
The Supreme Court set aside the previous verdict, directing a retrial under fair condition
emphasizing the importance of upholding justice and the rule of law.
 INTRODUCTION
Appeal Basis: The case involves an appeal filed by the appellant with special leave, challenging a
judgment by the Calcutta High Court's Division Bench.

Acquittal Order: The appeal seeks to challenge the acquittal order issued by the Additional Sessions
Judge in sessions case No. 20 of 1977, which involved respondents 1 to 9.

Allegations of Misconduct: The appeal revolves around allegations of professional misconduct involving
the police, magistrate, and public prosecutor.

Key Concerns: The appellant contends that the conduct of the police, magistrate, and public prosecutor
was unfair and unethical, leading to an unjust acquittal of the respondents.

Section 401 of CrPC: The appeal was made under section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC),
which allows for appeals against orders of acquittal.

Need for Review: The appellant asserts that the facts of the case justify a review due to the apparent
misconduct and unfairness observed during the trial proceedings.
FACTS OF THE CASE
1. Murder and Investigation
- On August 29, 1975, the appellant's younger brother was shot and killed.
- A First Information Report (FIR) was filed on August 30, 1975, at the Kotwali Police
Station in Krishna Nagar.
- Allegations of superficial and biased investigation by the police, allegedly due to
political affiliations.
- Sections: FIR filed under Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections 302 (murder), 364
(kidnapping or abducting in order to murder), and 120B (criminal conspiracy).

2. Delay and Prosecutor's Appointment

- Chargesheet filed against respondents 1 to 9 approximately 14 months after the
murder.
- Appellant arrived from the UK around May 15, 1978, requesting appointment of a
special public prosecutor.
- No response from the Government of West Bengal or relevant authorities.
- Appellant's attempt to engage with Public Prosecutor Umapada Bhattacharya
unsuccessful.
 3. Trial Proceedings
- Appellant's attempts to ascertain prosecution representation met with obstacles.
- Special Public Prosecutor S.N. Ganguly's request for an adjournment granted for only one
day, leading to his withdrawal.
- District Magistrate Nadia's letter appointing S.S. Sen as additional public prosecutor.
- Sen's hasty examination of witnesses, amidst concerns for their safety due to alleged
political affiliations.
- Request for trial adjournment granted due to witness safety concerns.
4. Witness Protection and Intimidation
- Allegations of witness intimidation by supporters of the Communist Party of India.
- Complaints and requests for witness protection disregarded.
- Prosecution's failure to question crucial witnesses, leading to combative testimony

5. Court Applications and Orders

- Appellant's application to be called as a witness denied by the Additional Sessions Judge.
- Second plea for a stay of proceedings dismissed, leading to the acquittal of respondents 1 to 9.
IMPORTANT STATUTES STATED IN THE CASE
1. Section 302, 364, and 120B
in The Indian Penal Code,1860
2. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971
3. Section 401 in The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973
JUDGEMENT

Unjust Trial Proceedings

The judgment criticizes the trial conducted by the Additional Sessions Judge, highlighting
severe flaws.
It points out the unjust bias favoring respondents Nos. 1 to 9 at the expense of the
prosecution.
The decision of the Public Prosecutor of Nadia to represent respondents Nos. 1 to 9 is
condemned as a breach of professional standards and fairness in justice administration.

Witness Intimidation and Lack of Protection

Presence of Communist Party sympathizers during the trial caused agitation and
intimidation.
Despite intimidation, no measures were taken to ensure the safety of witnesses, the
complainant, and the appellant.
Witness hostility indicates their perception of danger, further undermining the trial's
fairness.
 3. Procedural Unfairness
The trial was adjourned for only one day upon the request of the Special Public Prosecutor for
preparation, leaving insufficient time for adequate preparation.
The late appointment of an Additional Public Prosecutor resulted in inadequate preparation for the case.
The trial's bias against the prosecution indicates its lack of fairness and impartiality.

4. Reversal of Acquittal and Retrial

Given the unjust circumstances, the acquittal of respondents Nos. 1 to 9 is overturned.
The High Court's decision rejecting the appellant's application is also reversed.
Respondents Nos. 1 to 9 are ordered to be retried on the same charges.

5. Trial Venue and Prosecution Appointment

Due to bias in Krishna Nagar, the trial is directed to be transferred to the City Civil and Sessions Court in
Calcutta.
The Chief Judge of the City Civil & Sessions Court will appoint a judge for the trial.
The State Government is tasked with appointing an experienced criminal defense attorney as the Special
Public Prosecutor after consulting with the appellant and the complainant.
 Analysis:
Role of Prosecutors: Prosecutors should see themselves as
seekers of justice, not just aiming for convictions. In India,
they're guided by the judge and have the right to decide not to
proceed with a case.

Importance of Fair Investigation: Police investigations need to

be accurate and thorough to ensure fairness in the legal
process.

Judicial Responsibility: Judges and magistrates play a crucial

role in ensuring a fair and strong justice system.
 Conclusion:
Prosecutor's Role: Prosecutors aren't just out to get convictions; their main job is to ensure
justice is served. They should present all relevant information, even if it helps the accused.

Independence of Prosecutors: Prosecutors aren't controlled by the police or any other

outside influence. They have the freedom to decide whether to pursue a case, without
pressure.

Ethical Duties: Prosecutors should avoid using improper tactics to secure convictions. Their
role is not just to win cases but also to uphold justice.
Prosecutors should focus on fairness, not just on winning cases. They're independent and
responsible for ensuring justice is served, while also being ethical in their approach.