New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has upheld the right of crime victims and their legal heirs to challenge acquittals, strengthening the framework of victim-centric justice in the country.
A bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan clarified that the right to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), introduced in 2009, extends not only to the victim but also to their legal heirs. The Court held that the statutory right to appeal includes both the right to file and to prosecute an appeal, ensuring it does not become ineffective upon the victim’s death.
The ruling came in a case originating from Uttarakhand, where Tara Chand and his relatives, including his son Khem Singh, were attacked in 1992. After the accused were acquitted by the High Court, Khem Singh filed an appeal. However, he died during the proceedings, leading his son Raj Kumar, also an injured victim in the incident, to seek sa ubstitution to continue the appeal. The accused contended that the appeal abated with Khem Singh’s death, relying on Section 394(2) CrPC, which generally allows appeals to continue only in cases involving convicted persons.
The Supreme Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that victims and their heirs fall under the definition of “victim” in Section 2(wa) of the CrPC. The Court ruled that preventing heirs from continuing an appeal would defeat the purpose of the 2009 amendment, which was introduced to expand the rights of victims in the criminal justice system.
As a result, the Court permitted Raj Kumar to continue the appeal and directed that the matter be remanded to the Uttarakhand High Court for a fresh hearing.
Legal experts noted that this decision significantly strengthens the rights of victims, ensuring that justice remains accessible even if the victim dies during the course of proceedings. It aligns with recent judicial trends that have sought to give victims a more active role in criminal cases, moving away from a system historically dominated by the State and the accused.
The judgment is expected to influence future cases, reinforcing the principle that victims and their families should not be deprived of the opportunity to seek justice merely due to procedural technicalities.