Victims have unbridled participatory rights, SC says in Lakhimpur Kheri ruling

The victims have ”unbridled participatory rights” from the stage of investigation till the culmination of the criminal proceedings and such powers are ”totally independent, incomparable” with that of the State, the Supreme Court held on Monday.

The significant observation came from the top court in its decision setting aside the Allahabad high court’s February 10 verdict granting bail to Ashish Mishra, son of Union minister Ajay Mishra, in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case.

On October 3 last year, eight people were killed in Lakhimpur Kheri during violence that erupted when farmers were protesting against Uttar Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister Keshav Prasad Maurya's visit to the area.

In a 24-page judgment, a bench comprising Chief Justice N V Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kohli dealt in detail with the rights of the victims in criminal cases and said they are ”totally independent, incomparable, and are not accessory or auxiliary to those of the State” under Code of Criminal Procedure.

”A 'victim' within the meaning of CrPC 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,” Justice Surya Kant said, writing the judgment for the bench.

Until recently, criminal law had been viewed on a dimensional plane wherein the courts were required to adjudicate between the accused and the State, it said, adding the 'victim', a ”de facto sufferer of a crime” had no participation in the adjudicatory process and was made to sit outside the court as a mute spectator.

”However, with the recognition that the ethos of criminal justice dispensation to prevent and punish 'crime' had surreptitiously turned its back on the 'victim', the jurisprudence with respect to the rights of victims to be heard and to participate in criminal proceedings began to positively evolve,” it said.

While deciding the plea, it framed one of the questions of whether a 'victim' as defined under CrPC is entitled to be heard at the stage of adjudication of bail application of an accused.

"The victim has a legally vested right to be heard at every step post the occurrence of an offence," it said, adding, "Such a 'victim' has unbridled participatory rights from the stage of investigation till the culmination of the proceedings in an appeal or revision."

On the domestic front, recent amendments to the CrPC have recognised a victim's rights in the Indian criminal justice system and the genesis of such rights lies in a Law Commission report in which ’radical recommendations' were made, it said.

The victim's right to participate in the criminal trial and his/her right to know the status of the 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,” it said, referring the report of a committee of the law panel.

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 said.

”It cannot be gainsaid that the right 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...We reiterate that these rights are totally independent, incomparable, and are not accessory or auxiliary to those of the State under the CrPC,” it said.

The presence of the State through its probe agency and the prosecutor do not mean that victims have been heard, it said.

The bench, however, clarified that the 'victim' and complainant or informant' are two distinct ”connotations in criminal jurisprudence”.

”It is not always necessary that the complainant/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.

Referring to the facts of the case, the bench said that it was constrained to express its disappointment with the manner in which the high court has failed to acknowledge the right of the victims by not according to the hearing to them.

It is worth mentioning that the complainant and those seeking cancellation of the bail are close relatives of the farmers who have lost their lives in the incident, it said, adding that the stand that the lawyers of the 'victims' had got disconnected from the online proceedings in the high court has not been assailed.

”We, therefore, answer the question (on the right to be heard) ...in the affirmative, and hold that in the present case, the 'victims' have been denied a fair and effective hearing at the time of granting bail to the respondent accused,” it said.