Our view is in line with the observations made by a three-Judges Bench of this Court in Jagjeet Singh And Others v. Ashish Mishra Alias Monu And Another39 wherein speaking for the Bench, Justice Suryakant made the following pertinent observations relating to the victim’s right to be heard and alluding to the recommendations made by the Law Commission of India in its 154th Report that highlighted “the right of the victim or his/her legal representative to be impleaded as a party in every criminal proceedings where the charges are punishable with 7 years’ imprisonment or more”, observed thus :-
“19. 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 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. {Para 24}
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEALS NO. 822-823 OF 2023
ARISING OUT OF PETITIONS FOR SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO. 11104-11105 OF 2022
MS. X Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
Coram: A.S. BOPANNA; J., HIMA KOHLI; J.
March 17, 2023.
Read full Judgment here: Click here.
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment