The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Saleem vs The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. consisting of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that a victim has unbridled participatory rights in all criminal proceedings in relation to which the person is a victim, but that is no reason to implead a victim as a party to any such proceedings, unless otherwise specifically so provided in the statute.
Facts:
Does the victim’s right to be heard include the obligation to be impleaded as a party-respondent in criminal proceedings? That was the question sought to be addressed by this judgment.
The petitioner filed a petition for regular bail u/s 439 and 482 of the CrPC. The case is related to FIR No. 320/2022 registered u/s 376 of the IPC and u/s 4 of the POCSO Act at P.S.: Jaitpur. During the first hearing on 05.12.2022 of a certain case, it was noticed that the victim in the FIR was included as a party-respondent, but with anonymized details. The petitioner's lawyer claimed that this was done following the court registry’s directions. The Registrar was asked to provide a report, which stated that the victim was included as a party-respondent in accordance with section 439(1A) CrPC and Delhi High Court’s Practice Directions from 24.09.2019. The report also mentioned that verbal directions were previously given to hide the victim’s identity while including her as a respondent. A similar practice was followed in all cases related to sexual offence.
Contention Made:
Petitioner: It was contended that victims do not need to be made a party-respondent in criminal proceedings, but they should be given notice and the opportunity to be heard in cases involving sexual offenses or the SC-ST Act. Jagjeet Singh & Ors v. Ashish Mishra alias Monu & Anr. stated that victims have the right to be heard at every stage of a criminal proceeding, but do not need to be made party-respondent. The disclosure of the identity of the victim is redundant if it is already included in the FIR. To protect victims from social stigma, the Apex Court provided directions in Nipun Saxena for anonymizing case files in sexual offenses. Although victims are usually not required to be included as parties in legal proceedings, they may be included if the Registry insists on it.
Respondent: It was contended that sometimes victims are not informed about petitions being filed against them, making it difficult for them to contest at the first hearing. To balance the need for victims to be party-respondents and protect their identity, their personal information should be anonymized to ensure they are aware of the petition and can contest it. They stressed on the mandatory nature of the intimation required to be sent to victims/complainants/informants under 439(1A) CrPC, as explained in Miss G (Minor) v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Observations of the Court:
The Bench noted that the Indian justice system has recognized the importance of victims in criminal cases and has given them the right to file an appeal against an accused’s acquittal without seeking permission from the court. This was noted through various court cases. Victims of crime have the right to participate fully in legal proceedings related to the crime committed against them, according to the Supreme Court. However, in cases of sexual offence, it is mandatory to keep the victim’s identity confidential as held in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, so that they do not face any hostile discrimination or harassment in the future.
The statutory provisions that were relevant for consideration in this case were perused by the Bench, along with the relevant portion of Practice Directions dated 24.09.2019 issued by the Delhi High Court in-line with the requirements of section 439(1A) CrPC.
In summary, there was a conflict between the victim’s right to participate in criminal proceedings and the legal requirement to keep the victim’s identity confidential in cases of sexual offenses. The Bench had to find a way to uphold both mandates without contradicting each other.
It noted that the government is responsible for prosecuting criminals, and this is important because criminal offenses are seen as an attack on society. The government is considered impartial because it is not directly involved in the crime and can continue to prosecute even if the victim no longer wants to pursue the case. It is important for the Public Prosecutor to be fair and present the case without trying to unfairly secure a conviction. The victim's role in criminal proceedings, including their right to be heard, should be determined based on the context and stage of the proceedings. It reiterated that the right to be represented and be heard is distinct from the right or the obligation to be a party to criminal proceedings. It is possible that a victim may choose not to participate in the proceedings and forcing them to do so may cause further harm.
Reliance was placed on X v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. and Birbal Kumar Nishad v. State of Chhattisgarhwherein the Apex Court had stressed on the necessity of anonymisation of the names of victims.
Judgment:
The Bench held that there was no legal obligation to involve the victim in criminal proceedings, but victims have the right to participate in such proceedings. The law requires victims to be heard in bail proceedings, but they do not need to be made a party to the petition. The court also suggested that the provision of Section 439(1A) CrPC should be expanded to include the victim's right to be heard in other petitions related to temporary relief. As per Section 439(1A) CrPC, the victim has the right to be heard personally or through a representative, and legal aid counsel may be appointed if necessary. The victim should not just be present as a formality but should be able to actively participate in the hearing.
It directed that the Registry should closely examine all submissions concerning sexual offenses to ensure that the victim’s identity remains confidential. It also provided specific guidelines to maintain confidentiality as aforesaid. The directions given were not comprehensive, and the Registry was expected to carefully consider any unique aspects of a particular case during the scrutiny stage, with the goal of adhering to the directions in the Nipun Saxena case.
Case: Saleem vs The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Citation: Bail Appln. 3635/2022
Bench: Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani
For Petitioner: Mr. Sudarshan Rajan, Mr. Hitain Bajaj, Mr. Rohit Bhardwaj, Ms. Samreen, Mr. Md. Qamar Ali, Mr. Ramesh Rawat and Mr. Mahesh Kumar, Advocates. Ms. Rebecca M. John, Senior Advocate (Amicus Curiae) with Ms. Praavita Kashyap and Ms. Anushka Baruah, Advocates.
For Respondents: Mr. Tarang Srivastava, APP for the State with SI Madhu Yadav, P.S.: Jaitpur. Mr. Nitin Saluja, Advocate (DHCLSC) with Mr. Ankur Sinha and Mr. Saahil Mongia for R-2.
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
