Victims’ kin have right to oppose accused’s bail plea in heinous crime cases: Supreme Court

NEW DELHI: Expanding the rights of the kin of victims of crime, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that they are entitled to oppose even the bail plea of accused in cases involving heinous crimes in addition to their right to file appeal against acquittal of accused.

This ruling was handed down by a bench of Chief Justice N V Ramana and Justices Surya

Kant

and

Hima Kohli

while ordering cancellation of bail granted to

Ashish Kumar Mishra

, the prime accused in the October 3 Lakhimpur Kheri violent incident in which eight persons lost their lives.

Writing the judgment, Justice Kant said a victim, as defined in the criminal procedure code, cannot be asked to await the commencement of trial for asserting his/her right to participate in the proceedings.

"He/She has a legally vested right to be heard at every step post the occurrence of an offence. Such a ‘victim’ has unbridled participatory rights from the stage of investigation till the culmination of the proceedings in an appeal or revision," he said.


The bench clarified that the ‘victim’ and ‘complainant/informant’ are two distinct connotations in criminal jurisprudence. "It is not always necessary that the complainant or the informant is also a ‘victim’, for even a stranger to the act of crime can be an ‘informant’, and similarly, a ‘victim’ need not be the complainant or informant of a felony," it said.

Some special laws like the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, cast a legal obligation on the courts to hear the victim at the time of granting bail. However, with this ruling, the kin of the victims of heinous crime would now be entitled to participate in the court proceedings, including opposing the bail of the accused.

Justice Kant said, "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," he said.

The SC said the rights of a victim under the amended

CrPC

, are substantive, enforceable, and are another facet of human rights. "The victim’s right, therefore, cannot be termed or construed restrictively like a 'brutum fulmen' (an ineffective legal right). 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," it said.