The Karnataka High Court on has observed in one of its judgement that 'victim' under the SC/ST Atrocities Act also include parents and family members of the person who sustains injuries arising out of the crime.
The Bench observed:
"..the definition "victim" as enumerated in the Act is wide enough, which include any individuals who falls within the definition of the SC/ST Act who has suffered or experienced physically, mentally, psychologically, emotionally or monitory harm or suffered harm to his or her property. If a person sustains injuries arising out of crime then, he himself, his parents, family members are also to be considered as victim as per the above definition",
The Court was dealing with a case in which it has to decide whether the mother of the victim under the SC/ST Atrocities Act, who was also the informant should have been made a Respondent-party in the bail application moved by the accused.
The Petitioner-accused had contended that the informant (victim's mother) need not be impleaded as a party and it would suffice if an information is given to the victim or his dependents or the first informant about the proceedings pending before the Court in terms of Section 15-A(3) of the SC/ST Act.
The Court though denied the contention made.
Guidelines passed in view of the above observation by the Bench are as following:
1."A right is conferred on the victim or his/her dependents to participate in the proceedings initiated under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as enumerated in Section 15-A. Therefore, the first informant/ complainant/ victim or dependents shall be made as a party in the proceedings and issue necessary notice to the victim or dependents/ first informant/ complainant/ victim or dependents and to hear them in any proceedings as envisaged under Sub-section (5) of Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act.
2.The Special Courts trying with the offence/s under the SC/ST Act shall direct the District Legal Services Authority to provide an advocate on behalf of the victim or his/her dependents/ first informant/complainant from the Panel Advocates of District Legal Services Authority."
Court Observation on 'Section 15A(5): Right to opportunity of hearing of the victim'
The bench disagreed the petitioner's submission and observed that Section 15-A(5) of the Act guarantees a right to a victim or dependents to participate in any proceedings.
The Court remarked:
"Right of 'Audi Alterm Partem' is conferred, Where a right of Audi Alterm Partem is conferred on the victim or his dependents, then the court has to give an opportunity/right of audience to the victim or his/her dependent to hear them as to enable them to participate in the proceedings including bail proceedings also."
The Court thus in this backdrop, held:
"The court is able to hear the victim or dependent in respect of a proceedings as enumerated in Sub-section (5) of Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act only when the victim or dependent are made as parties in the proceedings, otherwise it cannot be possible for the court to hear the victim/dependents and to receive any written submission as stated in the said provision,"
The Court also opined that while Section 15-A(3) assigns a duty to the Special Public Prosecutor to the State on behalf of the victim, Section 15A(5) expressly confers right of victims and witnesses to participate in any proceedings.
Victim under the SC/ST Act
The High Court in its order in the present case has also clarified on who is a 'victim' as per Section 2 (ec) of the Act.
The Court observed:
"If a person sustains injuries arising out of crime then, he himself, his parents, family members are also to be considered as victim as per the above definition. It is not only stipulated a physical harm is to be caused but if there is a harm mentally, psychologically, emotionally or monetarily or if there is any harm in respect of the property then such person is also coming within the definition of the victim,"
Thus in the case at hand, the Court noted that the informant was the mother of the injured person and therefore, she was 'definitely' a victim.
Further, considering the gravity of the offence alleged and also the severity of the punishment to be imposed, the Court decided not to release the petitioners on bail for the reason that "if they are released on bail then there would be of chances of threatening the injured, his parents and also tampering the evidences and also chances of absconding and fleeing away from justice."
It further held that the submission made by the Petitioner-accused that there was no pre-meditation and sharing of common intention between them, couldn't be elicited at this stage but only during the full- fledged trial.
The Court also denied making any comments on account of delay in registering the FIR.
The judgement has been passed by Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar on 21-07-2020.
Read Judgement Here:
Picture Source :