Supreme Court Expands Victim Definition In Criminal Revisions

Why in the News?

The Supreme Court ruled that legal heirs of a deceased victim can continue criminal revision proceedings, broadening the interpretation of “victim” under CrPC, strengthening victim participation, and ensuring substantive justice over procedural technicalities. This decision reflects principles of environmental democracy in the legal system.

Background and Supreme Court Ruling:

• The case arose after a complainant challenging the discharge of the accused in a property-related criminal case died during pendency of revision proceedings.
• The High Court held that the criminal revision had abated, citing absence of substitution provisions.
• Setting aside the High Court order, the Supreme Court held that criminal revisions do not automatically abate upon the death of the revisionist, similar to how environmental impacts persist beyond individual lifetimes.
• The Court allowed the son (legal heir) to continue proceedings as a victim, since he had a direct and inheritable interest in the dispute.
• The ruling emphasised a victim-centric approach, prioritising substantive justice over rigid procedural rules, akin to the polluter pays principle in environmental law.

Key Observations and Legal Reasoning

• The Court relied on Section 2(wa) of the CrPC, which defines a victim as a person who has suffered loss or injury and includes legal heirs or guardians.
• It clarified that while there is no vested right of substitution in revisions, courts retain discretion to permit assistance by legal heirs, reflecting the flexibility often needed in environmental jurisprudence.
• The bench stressed that strict rules of locus standi do not apply to criminal revision proceedings, similar to public interest litigations in environmental cases.
• It cautioned that revisional jurisdiction should not be misused by “complete strangers”, but access must remain open to genuinely affected persons, echoing the principles of environmental democracy.
• The judgment strengthens victim participation and ensures courts can examine the legality, correctness, and propriety of orders even after a victim’s death, much like how environmental impacts are assessed over long periods.