Victim Can't Invoke Revisional Jurisdiction Against Each & Every Order Of Trial Court, May File Appeal Against Final Order: Karnataka High Court

Justice V. Srishananda, while dismissing the revision petition filed by the alleged rape victim against the trial court acquitting Raghaveshwara Bharathi Shri Swamiji, pontiff of the Shree Ramachandrapura Math, said,

"On further development of victimology, legislature may carve out necessary rights for the victim, as well even to challenge the orders that would be passed during the trial depending upon the need that may arise in a given case. Till such time, this court is of the considered opinion that courts cannot usurp the area of legislature in carving out a right through judicial pronouncement. Therefore, it should be construed that no other right is granted to a victim under the scheme of amended Code of Criminal Procedure."

The court in its order explained the rights granted to a victim and instances where orders passed by the trial court can be challenged.

Firstly it relied on Section 372 of CrPC, which states— No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided. Accordingly, the Court observed, that the intention of the legislature in conferring the right to a victim is to challenge the final order only on three conditions namely:-

(a) Against an Order of acquittal

(b) Inadequacy of sentence

(c) Inadequacy of compensation."

Then the court referred to sections 301 (Appearance by Public Prosecutors) and 302 (Permission to conduct prosecution) of CrPC and said, "On careful reading of the above provisions, it is crystal clear that under Section 301(2) of Cr.PC., in any case a private person may instruct a pleader to prosecute any person in any court, for which a Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor is in-charge of the case, and pleader so instructed shall act therein under the directions of the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor and may, with the permission of the court, submit written arguments after the closure of evidence."

Further it said, "However, the said right is a restricted right. The trial before the Magistrate may be permitted to be conducted by any person other than a Police Officer below the rank of inspector."

It then opined, "When Cr.P.C. has been amended by amending the Act No.5 of 2009, which came into effect on 31.12.2009, amending the Act granted a special right for a victim under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. But, framers of legislation did not deem it fit to carve out a separate right for the victim or the complainant by amending Section 301 and 302 of Cr.P.C. However, a victim or a complainant should not be considered as alien or an outsider to the proceedings before the Trial Court. While victimology is a developing concept in India, since there is a specific right carved out by the legislature in granting only the right of appeal, the same cannot be enlarged to the effect that the victim will have a right to challenge each and every order that would be passed by a trial Court."

Further the court held,

"More so, having regard to the scope of revisional jurisdiction. Suffice to say that such a right is not recognized by the legislature, in not amending Sections 301 or 302 or 397 or 401 of Cr.PC."

Thus, holding that the victim's plea was not maintainable, the court observed, "In the case on hand, since the State has already preferred revision challenging the impugned order, the victim cannot have any better right than the State to ventilate the injustice if any that has occasioned to the victim."

The court also relied on the judgements of the apex court in the case of T.N. Dhakkal Vs. James Basnett and another (2001) 10 SCC 419 and Karnataka High Court judgement in the case of M/s. Kerala Transport Company and Sri B. Somashekar and others, ILR 1982 KAR 169.

It observed, "On conjoint reading of the definition of victim and the right granted to a victim under the amended provisions of Cr.PC., referred to supra, since the State has already challenged the impugned order in Criminal Revision Petition No.550/2016, a separate Revision Petition by the victim in Criminal Revision Petition No.638/2016 cannot be countenanced in law. Therefore, the Revision Petition filed by the victim is not maintainable."

It may be noted that the state's revision petition was also dismissed holding that the charge sheet in the matter was not filed by the authorized person and thus, the proceedings against the accused stand vitiated.

Case Title: State Of Karnataka v. Shreemad Jagadguru Shankaracharya Shree Shree Raghaveshwara Bharathi Shri Swamiji

Case Title: CRL.RP NO.550/2016

Date of Order: 29th Day of December, 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 12

Appearance: Senior Advocate M.T.Nanaiah, a/w advocate M N Nehru for petitioner; Advocate Thejesh.P, For R1; Senior Advocate C.V.Nagesh, a/w Advocate Manmohan.P.N Advocate Vinay.N, For R2

Click Here To Read/Download Order