E-Paper
SC expands scope of ‘victim’, allows heirs to continue cases
A bench of justices ruled that criminal revision proceedings do not necessarily abate upon the death
The Supreme Court has advocated an expansive and purposive understanding of who qualifies as a “victim” under criminal law, holding that children or other legal heir of a deceased person can continue criminal proceedings and assist courts in testing the legality of orders that adversely affect the victim’s interests.
A bench of justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra ruled that criminal revision proceedings do not necessarily abate upon the death of the person who initiated them, particularly when the revision is pursued by an informant or complainant and the underlying trial continues. The court said that revisional courts should be guided by Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which defines a victim as “a person who has suffered any loss or injury” and expressly includes a guardian or legal heir.
“Ordinarily, a victim of the crime would be the most suitable person to provide assistance to the court because of his interest in overturning a decision that went against him,” held the bench in a verdict last week, emphasising that the strict rules of locus standi do not apply to criminal revision proceedings.
Importantly, the judgment strengthens victim participation in criminal justice, clarifies that revisions do not mechanically abate on death, and reinforces a victim-centric approach that prioritises substantive justice over procedural technicalities.
The ruling came in appeals filed by Syed Shahnawaz Ali, whose father initiated criminal proceedings alleging that the accused fabricated a sale deed to falsely claim his property. After the trial court discharged the accused of several serious offences while allowing the trial to proceed only for cheating, the father challenged the order before the Madhya Pradesh High Court. During the pendency of the revision, he died, following which the high court held that the revision had abated as there was no provision for substitution.
Setting aside the high court’s orders issued last year, the Supreme Court held that while the CrPC contains a specific provision for abatement of appeals, there is no corresponding provision mandating abatement of revisions. Once a revision is entertained, the court said, the revisional court has the discretion to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned order even after the death of the revisionist.
The bench clarified that although no one has a vested right to substitution in a revision, courts are not powerless to permit a legal heir or other victim to assist in the proceedings, especially where the person has a direct and inheritable interest in the subject matter of the dispute.
Furthermore, the court warned that while revisional jurisdiction should not become a tool for “complete strangers” with an axe to grind, the statutory definition of a victim provides a sound guide to ensure that access is limited to those genuinely affected by the alleged crime.
Allowing the appeals, the court restored the criminal revision before the high court and permitted the son to assist the court as a victim, directing that the matter be decided expeditiously.
