Karnataka HC: Can’t Provide Free Bus Service to Enable Voters to Reach Polling Booth  ||  Gau. HC Declares Levy of Court Fee at the rate of 7% for Grant of Probate as Unconstitutional  ||  Cal. HC: Can’t Say Retracted Statement to be Involuntary Without Being Examined by Court  ||  Supreme Court: Union Directed to Deport 17 Foreigners in Assam’s Transit Camps  ||  Recommendations Made by Gujarat HC for Promotions of Judicial Officers Upheld by Supreme Court  ||  SC: Can’t Charge Friends/Relative for Offence of Bigamy by Mere Presence in Second Marriage  ||  ICAI Rule Limiting Number of Tax Audits by Chartered Accountants Every Year Upheld by Supreme Court  ||  Supreme Court Explains 7 Sub-Rights that Must be Protected by State During Land Acquisition  ||  SC: Accused Can’t be Arrested by ED After Special Court has Taken Cognizance of PMLA Complaint  ||  SC: Employees Filing Writ Petitions Against Air India After its Privatisation, Not Maintainable    

Marenna @ Mareppa vs. The State - (High Court of Karnataka) (21 Jul 2020)

SC/ST Act guarantees a right to a victim or dependents to participate in any proceedings

MANU/KA/2555/2020

Criminal

Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) praying to release the Petitioner on bail in case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 307, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) pending on the file of District and Sessions Judge.

The learned counsel for the Petitioner had submitted that, the Petitioner had not picked up any weapon to assault the minor injured and as against him the overt act alleged is only that, he has kicked the injured and abused him in filthy language. Therefore, submitted that there is no element of sharing of common intention between the Petitioners and other accused and therefore prayed to release the Petitioner on bail. Petitioner prayed to release the Petitioner on bail.

It is the case of the prosecution that, the Petitioner has assaulted on the head of the minor boy with Axe for which the Petitioner and other accused have abetted to kill the injured person. Upon considering the FIS and other materials at this stage, which are made available before this court that there is a prima facie element of sharing common intention between them in furtherance of commission of offence alleged. At this stage, it cannot be accepted the submission made by the learned counsel that there was no pre-meditation and sharing of common intention between the petitioners and the other accused and in a sudden spur of moment the incident has occurred. Whether the Petitioner and other accused have shared common intention or not in furtherance of commission of offence alleged, it may be elicited during the full- fledged trial but not at this stage.

Further, the prosecution papers prima facie reveals that, the first informant and injured are belonging to Scheduled Caste and knowing fully well the caste of the first informant and injured had abused in filthy language by mentioning the name of their caste. The offences foisted are attracted prima facie as against the Petitioners herein. Therefore, considering the gravity of offence alleged as it reveals from the prosecution papers and if the Petitioners were successful in their attempt, then the death of the injured person would have been caused. Thus, in view of gravity of the offence alleged and also the severity of the punishment to be imposed, present Court is of the opinion 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. Therefore, the Petitioners are not entitled for enlarging them on bail. Thus, the petitions filed by the Petitioners are liable to be rejected.

Further, in the present case, the first informant is the mother of the injured person. Therefore, definitely the first informant is victim in the present case. Sub-section (5) of Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act guarantees a right to a victim or dependents to participate in any proceedings thus, right of 'Audi Alterm Partem' is conferred. Therefore, 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. Therefore, a victim or dependent has a right to be heard by the Court enabling the victim or dependents to participate in any proceedings in respect of not only bail proceedings but also in the proceedings of discharge, release, parole, conviction or sentence of an accused or any connected proceedings or arguments and file written submission on conviction, acquittal or sentencing of a case.

A right is conferred on the victim or his/her dependents to participate in the proceedings initiated under the Sc/ST Act, as enumerated in Section 15-A, as discussed above. 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.

Tags : BAIL   ENTITLEMENT   PARTICIPATION   RIGHT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved