Jahanvi Agarwal
The Allahabad High Court declared on 28th July 2023 that the legal heirs of the victim have every right to participate in a criminal proceeding starting from the stage of the investigation until the appeal or revision reaches its finality.
The said case was filed by an application brought under Sections 302, 304 B, 201, and 498 A r/w Section 34 of the IPC, Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and Section 30 of the Arms Act. The bench, consisting of Justice Shree Prakash Singh, set aside the order made by Respondent No. 2.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
- In this case, Respondent No. 3 and his family members began acting cruelly towards the deceased after their marriage. They made dowry demands and threatened the deceased with serious consequences if she, the applicant, and the family did not comply with their demands.
- At this time, the deceased gave birth to a girl child. Even after the birth of the kid, the behavior of the family remained the same. The deceased continued to be denied food and was kept apart from her family.
- Respondent No. 3 casually confessed that he had shot the deceased’s daughter due to which she suffered serious injuries and also killed the deceased thereafter.
- Due to pressure from the accused, who are prominent members of the community, the police refrained from filing the incident’s formal police report. The inquiry was moved around a lot before the chargesheet was submitted and the trial started.
- The applicants are strangers and have no right to be heard; hence, the trial court failed to pass the impugned order and refused to provide the applicants and victims with a chance to be heard.
ISSUES RAISED:
- Whether the legal heirs/guardians of the victim have right to participate in the trial proceedings?
- Whether the subsequent Presiding Officer had a right to review/revise/revisit the order passed by the Predecessor Judge?
COURT’s OBSERVATION:
- In response to the second issue, the bench noted that the victim has a legal right to be heard at every point following the commission of an offense and that this participation extends from the beginning of the inquiry process all the way until the conclusion of any appeal or revision.
- Therefore, the Court answered the first question in the affirmative. The victim has every right to participate in a criminal case from the stage of inquiry until appeal or revision reaches its conclusion. This is because the law is binding on all Courts in this nation.
- While answering the second question, the High Court ruled that there must be some sort of emotional connection between the applicant No. 1 and the deceased and that it is a logical result that if a person is affectionate with another and something adverse occurs on the other side, there must be harm done to that person’s mind.
- Since the deceased was living with applicant no. 1 when she was shot, there would have been mental anguish and harm for the applicant no. 1. As a result, this cannot be disputed in the current situation, and since he is the deceased’s uncle and falls under the definition of the victim as set forth in section 2(wa) of the CrPC, the second question is also answered positively.
- The bench stated that the law is well established that a judgment or order cannot be revised by the same court unless otherwise provided in any law that is in force at the time or any direction or order passed by the superior courts, and in the present case, in the absence of any such provisions or directions, the Sessions Court had the authority to review the judgment or order.
- High Court allowed the application.
Case Name: Parmanand Sirumal Tahalramani v. State Of U.P
Diary Number: 6853/2023
Counsel for Applicant: Gantavya
Counsel for Opposite Party: G.A.
Bench: Justice Shree Prakash Singh