Victim counsel's role in Sessions trials remains limited to assisting the Public Prosecutor, not independently conducting prosecution.

In Sessions trials, the Public Prosecutor retains primary control of the prosecution, and the proviso to Section 24(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 gives a victim's counsel only a subordinate role of assistance. The advocate engaged by the victim cannot, as of right, independently cross-examine witnesses, make oral submissions, or conduct the prosecution. Any questions or suggestions may be routed through the Public Prosecutor, or brought to the court's notice for action under its powers to recall witnesses or put questions where necessary. The ruling preserves trial fairness while allowing controlled victim participation.

---

---

Issues: Whether a victim's counsel engaged under the proviso to Section 24(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 can independently cross-examine witnesses, make oral arguments, and otherwise conduct the prosecution in a Sessions trial, or whether the role remains limited to assisting the Public Prosecutor.

Analysis: The statutory scheme places the Public Prosecutor in primary control of the prosecution in a Sessions trial. Sections 225 and 301 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with the proviso to Section 24(8), were construed harmoniously. The use of the word "assist" was treated as significant and as indicating a secondary and supportive role for the victim's counsel, not a parallel prosecution. The Court also relied on the need to preserve trial fairness and the accused's safeguards, while recognizing that victim participation serves as a safety valve where prosecutorial lapses occur. In appropriate cases, the victim's counsel may route questions or suggestions through the Public Prosecutor or, if necessary, bring them to the notice of the Court, which may act under its powers under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Conclusion: The victim's counsel has only a limited right to assist the prosecution and cannot, as of right, cross-examine witnesses or make oral submissions independently; the impugned refusal to permit such direct participation was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The decision confirms the primacy of the Public Prosecutor in Sessions trials while permitting only controlled and supportive participation by the victim's counsel.

Ratio Decidendi: The proviso permitting a victim to engage an advocate to assist the prosecution confers only a subordinate, assistive role that must operate under the primacy and control of the Public Prosecutor and cannot be expanded into independent conduct of the prosecution.

---