Wed. Sep 23rd, 2020

Restrictive interpretation of “victim” and “legal heir” in the light of sections 2(wa) and 372 of CrPC, overruled

2 min read

Delhi High Court:  In reference of a matter to Full Bench concerning
locus standi of private parties to
maintain appeals by virtue of the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. The Court
overruled its previous view decided in Chattar
Singh v. Subhash  2011 SCC OnLine Del
81 : (2011) 123 DRJ 257 (DB) wherein, it was held that the appellant being a Class II heir would not
inherit any thing from his deceased son. Thus, would not fall within the
expression ‘legal heir’ in the light of Section 2(wa) and hence he is not
entitled to prefer an appeal  by virtue
of  proviso attached to Section 372 of
CrPC .

While
adjudicating this matter two questions arose for the court’s consideration by
virtue of the order of reference. Firstly, whether the term ‘victim’ which
includes ‘legal heirs’ means persons entitled to the property of the victim
under the law applicable of inheritance or would embrace any person who has
suffered any loss or injury caused by crime/offence for which the accused
person has been charged. And secondly, whether the appellate remedy given under
proviso of Section 372 CrPC, is available with respect to only such offences
which were committed as on the date when the appellate right was conferred by
law or the appellate right would be available with respect to the date of the
decision or the appellate remedy is without any reference of the two points i.e.
the date when the offence was committed or when the offence was committed or
when the appellate right was conferred by law.

The Court by making an extensive discussion on
point involved in first question held that, the definition of ‘victim’ as
provided in Section 2 (wa) of CrPC which includes ‘legal heirs’ cannot exclude
those who actually fall within the definition of ‘victim’ by virtue of
emotional harm suffered by them. The laws of inheritance, which decide one’s
‘legal heirs’, are not intended to be solely determinative of the entitlement
to exercise the rights of the victim, in the criminal trial/appeal on his/her
death. The Court hereby applying the Heydon’s mischief rule expanded the scope
of the term by saying that it is impermissible for an appellate court to shut
out an appeal by a legal heir based on his/her not being an immediate heir, or
being lower down in hierarchy vis-à-vis entitlement to the crime victim’s
estate. Replying to the second question the court reaffirmed the view, relying
on numerous decisions decided by the Supreme Court, that right to appeal being
a substantive right always acts prospectively thus, all cases in which orders
were passed by any criminal court acquitting the accused or convincing him for
a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, passed on or after the
date on which amendment was made, the victims in those cases would have the
qualified right mentioned in the proviso of Section 372 CrPC. [Ram Phal v.
State; 2015 SCC OnLine Del 9802; decided on 28-05-2015]
Source: Legal news India

Leave a Reply