Supreme Court Expands Scope of ‘Victim’ Under Criminal Law
Introduction: A Shift Towards Victim-Centric Criminal Justice
In a significant ruling reinforcing victim rights in India’s criminal justice system, the Supreme Court has held that criminal revision proceedings do not automatically abate upon the death of the person who initiated them. The Court clarified that legal heirs or children of a deceased victim can continue such proceedings, provided they fall within the statutory definition of a “victim”.
This judgment strengthens the victim-centric approach in criminal law and prevents substantive justice from being defeated by procedural technicalities.
Factual Background of the Case
The ruling arose from appeals filed by Syed Shahnawaz Ali, whose father had initiated criminal proceedings alleging that the accused had fabricated a sale deed to illegally claim ownership of his property.
Key Facts:
The trial court discharged the accused of several serious offences.
The trial was permitted to continue only for the offence of cheating.
Aggrieved by the partial discharge, the complainant (father) filed a criminal revision before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
During the pendency of the revision, the complainant died.
The High Court held that the revision had abated, citing the absence of any provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for substitution of legal heirs in revision proceedings.
This order was challenged before the Supreme Court.
Core Legal Issue Before the Supreme Court
Whether a criminal revision petition abates automatically upon the death of the complainant or informant, and whether a legal heir can continue such proceedings as a “victim” under criminal law.
Supreme Court’s Ruling and Key Observations
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra set aside the High Court’s decision and adopted a purposive interpretation of criminal procedure.
Key Findings:
The CrPC expressly provides for abatement of criminal appeals, but no such provision exists for criminal revisions.
Once a revision petition is entertained, the revisional court retains discretion to examine the legality, correctness or propriety of the impugned order, even after the death of the revisionist.
Criminal revisions do not mechanically abate upon death.
The Court observed:
“Ordinarily, a victim of the crime would be the most suitable person to provide assistance to the court because of his interest in overturning a decision that went against him.”
Interpretation of ‘Victim’ Under Criminal Law
Statutory Provision: Section 2(wa), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 2(wa) defines a “victim” as:
“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.”
The Supreme Court relied heavily on this definition to hold that:
Legal heirs of a deceased victim fall squarely within the statutory framework.
Such heirs are entitled to assist the court in proceedings that affect the victim’s rights and interests.
No Absolute Right of Substitution, But Judicial Discretion Exists
The Court clarified an important distinction:
There is no vested or automatic right of substitution in criminal revision proceedings.
However, courts are not powerless to allow a legal heir or victim to assist in proceedings, particularly when:
The heir has a direct and inheritable interest in the subject matter.
The alleged crime affects property, reputation, or civil consequences tied to the victim’s estate.
Safeguard Against Abuse of Revisional Jurisdiction
While expanding victim participation, the Court also issued a caution:
Revisional jurisdiction cannot be opened to “complete strangers” with personal or political motives.
The statutory definition of “victim” acts as a filter, ensuring that only genuinely affected persons gain access to proceedings.
This balance ensures that the criminal process remains fair, structured and protected from misuse.
Constitutional Perspective: Access to Justice
Though not expressly cited, the ruling aligns with:
Article 21 of the Constitution of India (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), which includes the right to fair procedure and access to justice.
The evolving constitutional jurisprudence recognising victim rights as part of substantive due process.
Judicial Precedents Supporting Victim Participation
The judgment builds upon earlier Supreme Court trends, including:
Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka (2018) – recognising victims’ rights to participate in criminal proceedings.
Rekha Murarka v. State of West Bengal (2019) – acknowledging the role of victims beyond mere witnesses.
Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra (2022) – emphasising victim participation at all stages of criminal proceedings.
Final Directions of the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court restored the criminal revision before the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
It permitted the deceased complainant’s son to assist the court as a victim.
The High Court was directed to decide the revision expeditiously.
Significance of the Judgment
Why This Ruling Matters:
Strengthens victim-centric criminal jurisprudence
Prevents miscarriage of justice due to procedural rigidity
Clarifies the non-automatic abatement of criminal revisions
Ensures continuity of proceedings affecting property and legal rights
Reinforces substantive justice over technical formalism
Conclusion: A Progressive Step in Criminal Justice Reform
This decision marks a progressive evolution in Indian criminal law, ensuring that justice does not end with the death of a complainant. By recognising legal heirs as victims under Section 2(wa) CrPC, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that criminal law exists not merely to punish offenders, but also to protect and vindicate victims’ rights.

Comments
Post a Comment