Victim Need Not Wait For Commencement Of Trial For Asserting Right To Participate In Proceedings: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that a victim has the right to be heard and cannot be asked to await commencement of the trial for asserting his/her right to participate in the proceedings.

The Court was considering a Writ Petition against an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, whereby it allowed a Revision Petition filed by the informant directing to try the Petitioner and other accused.

The Bench of Justice Sushil M. Ghodeswar held, "...As regards ground of maintainability of revision petition at the behest of the informant is concerned, the informant, being a victim is having right to be heard and she cannot be asked to await for commencement of the trial for asserting his/her right to participate in the proceedings. The victim has legally vested right to be heard at every step post the occurrence of the offence as the victim has unbridled participatory rights from the stage of investigation till the culmination of the proceedings in an appeal or revision. Therefore, the victim who is informant, is entitled to prefer revision application against the order of learned J.M.F.C. under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C."

The Petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate V. D. Hon, while the Respondent was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor G. O. Wattamwar.

Facts of the Case

The Petitioner also prayed for restoring of the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate whereby the Application for adding the Petitioner as accused was rejected. It was his case that he is teacher in secondary school and at the time of crime, he was present on duty, and therefore, not connected with the alleged crime/ FIR registered for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 447, 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

Senior Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that the Respondent No.2, being informant, was not empowered to prefer a Criminal Revision Application under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as initially, an application for adding the Petitioner as an Accused was made by the prosecution before the Judicial Magistrate First Class. He stated that the remedy of filing a Revision is available to the person aggrieved, which, according to him, is only the State.

Reasoning By Court 

The Court at the outset looked into the question as to whether at the stage of filing of charge sheet, the ground of alibi can be taken by the Accused.

"Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 i.e. Section 109 of the Bharatiya Saksha Adhiniyam, 2023 states that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Thus, it is for the petitioner to establish his case by adducing evidence before the Sessions Court, and therefore, at this stage, his contention as regards presence or absence on the spot cannot be considered", the Court ruled.

As regards ground of maintainability of the Revision Petition at the behest of the Informant who is also the Victim, the Court held that the victim has a right to be heard and cannot be asked to await for commencement of the trial for asserting his/her right to participate in the proceedings.

"In the case in hand, though the Investigating Officer has already submitted charge-sheet under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. however, the same is silent as regards the petitioner. It is made clear that filing of charge-sheet or final report is not an empty formality. Such report should contain all the details for not sending accused for trial, so as to enable the Magistrate to decide what course to adopt i.e. whether accept the report and discharge the bonds or order further investigation or to take cognizance of the offence. As the concerned Investigating Officer has not filled up all the required details pertaining to petitioner, the order passed by the sessions Court in revision is correct and proper, and therefore, requires no interference by this Court", the Court ruled.

The Petition was accordingly dismissed.

Cause Title: Prashant Bhausaheb Patil v. The State of Maharashtra (2025:BHC-AUG:27934)

Appearances:

Petitioner- Senior Advocate V. D. Hon, Advocate A. V. Hon

Respondent- Additional Public Prosecutor G. O. Wattamwar, Advocate Baig Mirza Mazhar Javed, Advocate A. D. Sonkawade

Click here to read/ download Order