New Delhi: In a significant ruling in the criminal justice delivery system, the Supreme Court has held that the trial court should give the victims of an offence a hearing while awarding punishment to the accused charged of an offence.
Giving this ruling, a bench of Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Gupta said that a considerable amount of progress has been achieved in giving life to the rights of victims of crime despite the absence of a cohesive policy. But a lot more still needs to be done.
Among the steps that need to be taken to provide meaningful rights to the victims of an offence, it is necessary to seriously consider giving a hearing to the victim while awarding the sentence to a convict. There needs to be some balancing of the concerns and equalising their rights so that the criminal proceedings are fair to both.
In a separate verdict, Justice Deepak Gupta, while agreeing with Justice Lokur, said that a victim should seek permission in the high court for filing an appeal.
The bench was dealing with an appeal by the legal representative of Kodagali, the deceased who was a victim of an attack on the night of 6th February, 2009, at Bagalkot in Karnataka.
The trial court acquitted the accused and upon appeal, the Karnataka high court rejected the same without going into the merits. The present appeal by the legal representative is against this verdict.
Disposing the appeal, Justice Lokur held that the right to appeal is not a mere matter of procedure but a substantive right. The Parliament has recognised the rights of a victim to participate in a mutually satisfactory disposition of the case. This is a great leap forward in the recognition of the right of a victim to participate in the proceedings of a non-compoundable case.
Similarly, Parliament has amended the CrPC, introducing the right of appeal to the victim in certain circumstances.
Till sometime back, secondary victimisation was in the form of aggressive and intimidating cross-examination. However, a more humane interpretation of the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, has made the trial a little less uncomfortable.
