The victim has rights, even after death
The judgment strengthens victim participation in criminal justice and reinforces a victim-centric approach that prioritises substantive justice
The Supreme Court’s verdict expanding the definition of a “victim” under criminal law is a timely and necessary reaffirmation of the idea that justice cannot be allowed to collapse under the weight of procedural formalities. By holding that children or other legal heirs of a deceased complainant can continue revision proceedings, the court has strengthened the place of victims within India’s criminal justice system and corrected a perceived skew in favour of the accused and the State. At the heart of the judgment is an expansive reading of Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which defines a victim as a person who has suffered loss or injury and explicitly includes guardians or legal heirs. 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’s reasoning also reflects a broader shift towards recognising victims as active stakeholders rather than passive spectators in criminal proceedings. The judgment strengthens victim participation in criminal justice and reinforces a victim-centric approach that prioritises substantive justice — especially against a backdrop where litigation in India stretches over decades, often with little result. At the same time, the Supreme Court struck an important balance by clarifying that no one enjoys a vested right of substitution in revision proceedings and warning against opening the door to “complete strangers”. In meaningfully expanding the remit of due process to ensure that justice does not short-change those who need it, only because of circumstances beyond their control, the apex court has taken a vital step forward.
The Supreme Court’s verdict expanding the definition of a “victim” under criminal law is a timely and necessary reaffirmation of the idea that justice cannot be allowed to collapse under the weight of procedural formalities. By holding that children or other legal heirs of a deceased complainant can continue revision proceedings, the court has strengthened the place of victims within India’s criminal justice system and corrected a perceived skew in favour of the accused and the State. At the heart of the judgment is an expansive reading of Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which defines a victim as a person who has suffered loss or injury and explicitly includes guardians or legal heirs. 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’s reasoning also reflects a broader shift towards recognising victims as active stakeholders rather than passive spectators in criminal proceedings. The judgment strengthens victim participation in criminal justice and reinforces a victim-centric approach that prioritises substantive justice — especially against a backdrop where litigation in India stretches over decades, often with little result. At the same time, the Supreme Court struck an important balance by clarifying that no one enjoys a vested right of substitution in revision proceedings and warning against opening the door to “complete strangers”. In meaningfully expanding the remit of due process to ensure that justice does not short-change those who need it, only because of circumstances beyond their control, the apex court has taken a vital step forward.
One Subscription.
Get 360° coverage—from daily headlines
to 100 year archives.
Archives
HT App & Website
