Discussion & Conclusions
23. On a conspectus of the foregoing therefore, on the one hand, there is the unbridled right of a victim to participate in all criminal proceedings relating to the crime; and on the other hand, in so far as sexual offences are concerned, there is also a legal mandate that the victim's identity must be kept confidential.
24. It is accordingly necessary for this court to explore as to how these two legal mandates must be effectuated, so that one does not negate the other.
25. It must be noticed that the mandate of Jagjeet Singh (supra) is that the victim has unbridled participatory rights in criminal proceedings, which is not to say that the victim must replace or substitute the State as the prosecuting agency; nor that the victim must be placed as an impleaded party to the proceedings so as to make the victim answerable in all aspects.
26. Furthermore, notice must also be taken of the fact that section 439(1A) Cr.P.C. requires the court to hear a victim at the stage of considering bail petitions and other similar matters; and nowhere does that provision require that the victim be made a party to such proceedings.
29. The role of the victim, even on being afforded the right to be heard, however must vary with the context and the stage of criminal proceedings. In relation to bail proceedings for e.g., the victim may assist the court in clarifying relevant facts, such as any threats received by the victim or other witnesses; or the possibility of evidence tampering; or even flight risk. However, the victim would have no role in determining, say, the necessity of custodial interrogation, which would be the job of the investigating agency.
30. To reiterate, the right to be represented and be heard is distinct from the right or the obligation to be a party to criminal proceedings.
31. Indeed, there may be times where a victim may not seek a hearing before the court, and making a victim a party to the proceedings, mandating them to appear and 'defend', so to speak, various proceedings that the State or the accused may initiate, may cause additional hardship and agony to the victim.
32. In a recent decision in X vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. MANU/SC/0264/2023 cf. para 40, the Supreme Court had issued directions to its Registry to ensure that in sensitive matters, "... if the name of the prosecutrix is revealed in the petition, the same is returned to the learned counsel for redacting the name before the matter is cleared for being placed before the Court for appropriate orders". In another matter, taking exception to the name of the victim being mentioned in the judgment of the sessions court, in its order dated 30.06.2021 made in SLP (Crl) No. 4540/2021 titled Birbal Kumar Nishad vs. State of Chhattisgarh, the Supreme Court has made observations as to the necessity of anonymisation of the names of victims noting that "... It is well established that in cases like the present one, the name of the victim is not to be mentioned in any proceeding. We are of the view that all the subordinate courts shall be careful in future while dealing with such cases.".
33. Upon a conspectus of the foregoing, this court is persuaded to draw the following conclusions, which it is made clear, are restricted to criminal matters relating to or arising from or concerning sexual offences :
33.1. There is no requirement in law to implead the victim, that is to say, to make the victim a party, to any criminal proceedings, whether instituted by the State or by the accused;
33.2. In accordance with the mandate of the Supreme Court in Jagjit Singh (supra), a victim now has unbridled participatory rights in all criminal proceedings in relation to which the person is a victim, but that in itself is no reason to implead a victim as a party to any such proceedings, unless otherwise specifically so provided in the statute; Section 439(1A) Cr.P.C. mandates that a victim be heard in proceedings relating to bail, without however requiring that the victim be impleaded as a party to bail petitions;
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Bail Appln. 3635/2022
Decided On: 19.04.2023
Saleem Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Anup Jairam Bhambhani, J.
Citation: 2023:DHC:2622,MANU/DE/2515/2023
Print Page