Jagjeet Singh &Ors Versus Ashish Mishra @ Monu&Anr, Criminal Appeal No.632 of 2022: Supreme Court of India
The Bench noted that the right of the victim is independent of that of the State under the Cr.P.C. and the presence of the State in the proceedings cannot substitute the right of the victim to be heard.
A ‘Victim’ within the meaning of Cr.P.C. has a right to be heard at every step post the occurrence of offence, including the stage of adjudication of bail application of the accused. He/She cannot be asked to wait for the commencement of the trial for asserting his/her right to participate in the proceedings. Such a ‘victim’ has unbridled participatory rights from the stage of investigation till the culmination of the proceedings in an appeal or revision.
The Court added that “where the victims themselves have come forward to participate in a criminal proceeding, they must be accorded with an opportunity of a fair and effective hearing.”
“If the right to file an appeal against acquittal, is not accompanied with the right to be heard at the time of deciding a bail application, the same may result in grave miscarriage of justice. Victims certainly cannot be expected to be sitting on the fence and watching the proceedings from afar, especially when they may have legitimate grievances. It is the solemn duty of a court to deliver justice before the memory of an injustice eclipses.”
The Bench, while hearing the plea seeking cancellation of bail, identified one of the issues as under-
Whether a ‘victim’ as defined under Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, “Cr.P.C.”) is entitled to be heard at the stage of adjudication of bail application of an accused?”
It noted that traditionally, criminal law had been regarded as adjudication between the accused and the State. The victim, who is the sufferer of the crime, was viewed as a mute spectator. However, the Bench observed that jurisprudence of rights of the victims to be heard has evolved and their scope for participation in criminal proceedings has expanded over time. The pro-victim movement, the Bench notes, was augmented by the adoption of the UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for the Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, 1985 by the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 40/34. The movement was furthered by other international bodies like the European Union, that included the victims within the framework of the criminal law procedure. Victims Crime Act, 1984, and Victims’ Rights and Restitution Act, 1990 were enacted by the United States of America to grant legal assistance to the crime-victims. With similar purposes, Australia enacted South Australian Victims of Crime Act, 2001 and Canada enacted the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. These pieces of legislation have enlarged scope of participation as well as expanded the ambit of rights of the victims.
It was further recommended that the victim be armed with a right to be represented by an advocate of his/her choice, and if he/she is not in a position to afford the same, to provide an advocate at the State’s expense. The victim’s right to participate in criminal trial and his/her right to know the status of investigation, and take necessary steps, or to be heard at every crucial stage of the criminal proceedings, including at the time of grant or cancellation of bail, were also duly recognised by the Committee. Repeated judicial intervention, coupled with the recommendations made from time to time as briefly noticed above, prompted the Parliament to bring into force the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008, which not only inserted the definition of a ‘victim’ under Section 2 (wa) but also statutorily recognised various rights of such victims at different stages of trial.
It is pertinent to mention that the legislature has thoughtfully given a wide and expansive meaning to the expression ‘victim’ which “means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and the expression “victim” includes his or her guardian or legal heir.”
It cannot be gainsaid that the right of a victim under the amended Cr.P.C. are substantive, enforceable, and are another facet of human rights. The victim’s right, therefore, cannot be termed or construed restrictively like a brutumfulmen. We reiterate that these rights are totally independent, incomparable, and are not accessory or auxiliary to those of the State under the Cr.P.C. The presence of ‘State’ in the proceedings, therefore, does not tantamount to according a hearing to a ‘victim’ of the crime.
