Victim Participation In Criminal Trials
🔹 I. Concept of Victim Participation in Criminal Trials
Traditionally, criminal law is considered a matter between the state and the accused. The victim, although central to the crime, was often a passive party. However, this began to change with the rise of victimology — the study of victims' rights, needs, and roles in criminal justice.
Victim participation can occur in the following ways:
Filing or assisting in the filing of FIRs
Participation during bail hearings
Right to be heard during trials, especially sentencing
Right to appeal certain decisions (e.g., acquittals)
Seeking compensation or restitution
Legal representation in court
🔹 II. Legal Framework in India
Constitutional & Statutory Basis:
Article 21 of the Constitution ensures the right to fair and speedy justice, which applies to victims as well.
CrPC (Criminal Procedure Code), 1973:
Section 301(2): Legal assistance to the prosecution by a private counsel.
Section 311: Court's power to summon witnesses, aiding victims indirectly.
Section 372 (Proviso): Gives the victim a right to appeal.
Section 357: Compensation to victims.
Section 439(2): Victim can seek cancellation of bail.
🔹 III. Case Law: Detailed Explanations
Let’s now explore five important cases that shaped victim participation in criminal trials.
1. Reena Hazarika v. State of Assam (2018) 13 SCC 289
Issue: Right of the victim to fair trial and participation.
Facts:
Reena Hazarika was convicted based on circumstantial evidence.
The victim's family alleged that the trial court ignored crucial evidence that could exonerate the accused or clarify the victim’s experience.
Held:
The Supreme Court emphasized that a criminal trial is meant not only to punish the guilty but to protect the rights of the victim as well.
The Court held that the prosecution cannot conduct a case in a way that suppresses the victim’s perspective.
This case reinforced the importance of the victim’s version being brought fully and fairly before the court.
Impact:
Established the need for victim-sensitive trials.
Encouraged courts to ensure the victim’s active role, even if not represented formally.
2. Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka (2018) 14 SCC 745
Issue: Whether a victim can file an appeal against acquittal under the CrPC amendment of 2009.
Facts:
The accused was acquitted. The victim sought to appeal the acquittal.
Earlier, only the state could appeal; the 2009 amendment added a proviso to Section 372, allowing victims to appeal against acquittal, conviction for lesser offence, or inadequate compensation.
Held:
The Supreme Court upheld the right of a victim to appeal against acquittal.
It clarified that a victim need not seek the leave of the High Court (unlike the state) before filing such an appeal.
Impact:
Strengthened victim autonomy.
Set a precedent for independent victim appeals.
3. Satya Pal Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2015) 15 SCC 613
Issue: Right of the victim’s kin to file an appeal under Section 372 CrPC.
Facts:
The father of a deceased rape victim filed an appeal under Section 372 against the acquittal of the accused.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that the father (being the legal heir) is a ‘victim’ under the CrPC definition and is therefore entitled to file an appeal.
The Court emphasized the emotional, moral, and legal stake of the family of a victim in the trial outcome.
Impact:
Expanded the scope of who is considered a "victim".
Empowered families of deceased victims to participate in the appellate process.
4. Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. Union of India (1995) 1 SCC 14
Issue: Rights of rape victims and their treatment in the judicial process.
Facts:
The case arose from multiple gang-rape victims not receiving adequate support from police or the judiciary.
The victims were treated poorly, not given psychological support, or legal aid.
Held:
The Supreme Court issued guidelines for victim participation and support, especially for rape victims.
These included:
Legal representation from the start.
Special counselors.
Compensation schemes.
Proper treatment during trial.
Impact:
A milestone in victim-centric justice.
Influenced the development of Victim Compensation Schemes under Section 357A CrPC.
5. Best Bakery Case – Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat (2004) 4 SCC 158
Issue: Witness protection and hostile witnesses — the victim as a witness under pressure.
Facts:
In the communal riots in Gujarat (2002), 14 people were burnt alive in the Best Bakery.
Key prosecution witnesses, including Zahira (victim), turned hostile.
Allegations were made about threats, coercion, and denial of justice.
Held:
The Supreme Court ordered a retrial outside Gujarat (in Maharashtra) to ensure a fair trial.
It observed that victims/witnesses need protection and support, or else justice will be defeated.
Impact:
Prompted reforms in witness and victim protection.
Highlighted how victim intimidation undermines justice.
🔹 IV. International Perspective (Brief Mention)
6. Prosecutor v. Lubanga (International Criminal Court)
Victims were allowed to participate independently from the prosecution.
The ICC recognizes the victim’s right to:
Be heard during trial.
Seek reparations.
Access proceedings even without testifying.
🔹 V. Conclusion
Victim participation is now seen as a core element of fair trial jurisprudence, not just a peripheral concern. Courts, legislatures, and human rights bodies recognize that justice is not just about punishing the offender, but also about acknowledging, hearing, and compensating the victim.
The judicial trend in India, particularly since 2000, has been toward greater victim empowerment through:
Expanded rights to appeal
Participation in sentencing
Witness protection
Compensation mechanisms
These changes represent a significant shift in criminal law — from state-centered justice to victim-inclusive justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments