- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Kerala High Court
- /
- For Person To Be Considered Victim,...
For Person To Be Considered Victim, There Must Be Some Harm To Mind Or Reputation Which Can Be Perceived From Materials On Record: Kerala HC
Manju Elsa Isac
25 July 2024 12:37 PM IST
The Kerala High Court held that for a person to be considered a victim, there should be some harm to the mind or reputation which is perceivable from the materials on record. The Court made this observation while dismissing an appeal filed against the decision of Sessions Court whereby persons accused of conspiring to kill the appellant were acquitted. The appellant claimed that since he is...
The Kerala High Court held that for a person to be considered a victim, there should be some harm to the mind or reputation which is perceivable from the materials on record.
The Court made this observation while dismissing an appeal filed against the decision of Sessions Court whereby persons accused of conspiring to kill the appellant were acquitted. The appellant claimed that since he is the 'victim', he can file an appeal against the judgment of Sessions Court. The appellant argued that under the Indian Penal Code, harm caused to the mind or reputation is also considered an injury and therefore, he can be considered as a victim. The Court said that there was no perceivable harm to his mind or reputation.
Justice P. G. Ajithkumar held that the victim has been given the right to appeal by an amendment in 2009 and the definition of 'victim' has been added specifically for this. Therefore, the provision needs to be interpreted restrictively.
“A possibility to injury to the mind or reputation is not enough to mean injury for the purpose of Section 2(wa) of the Code. There must be some harm to the mind or reputation which can be perceived from the materials on record in order for the person to be a 'victim' entitled to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code.”
The respondents were accused of hatching a conspiracy to kill the appellant and some amount was promised and exchanged for the purpose. The alleged conspiracy was found by the police and after an investigation, a final report was filed. The Sessions Court acquitted the respondents saying that the evidence was insufficient to establish the charge.
The Counsel for the Respondents argued that there was no evidence to substantiate the charge even prima facie. Further, he argued that there was no consequence from the alleged conspiracy for the appellant to claim to be a 'victim' of the offence.
Thus, the Appeal was dismissed
Counsel for Appellants: Advocates R. Sudhish, M. Manju
Counsel for Respondents: Advocates K. Nirmalan, J. R. Prem Navaz, A. Rajasimhan, Sumin S.
Case No.: CRA(V) No. 895 of 2018
Case Title: Musthafa V. M. v Prajesh and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 466
