If Damage Or Loss Suffered By A Person Is Not Direct Consequence Of Alleged Crime, He Cannot Be Treated As Victim Under Proviso To Section 413 BNSS: Kerala HC

The Court was hearing an Appeal preferred under the proviso to Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the Appellant, who claims to be a victim, challenging the judgment of the Special Court, CBI.

The bench of Justice C Jayachandran observed, “When the damage/loss claimed to have been suffered by the appellant is not the direct consequence of the accusations constituting the crime in question, such a person cannot be treated as a victim in law, for the purpose of the remedy contemplated in the proviso to Section 413 of the BNSS.”

Advocate Jose Pallattukaran appeared for the Appellant and Advocate R Bindu Sasthamangalam appeared for the Respondent.

In the present case, the Respondent opposed the very maintainability of the appeal, on the premise that the appellant cannot be considered as a victim, in terms of its definition under the BNSS.

The Court observed, “…the requirement of an act or omission for which the accused person has been charged is obliterated in the new definition. Instead, a loss of injury has to be sustained to a person by the act or omission of the accused person, so as to claim the status of victim as per the Sanhita.”

The Court further said, “It cannot be lost sight of the doctrine that every crime is deemed to have been committed against the State, which explains the conferment of the power to prefer an appeal, on the State in cases of acquittal; and in cases instituted upon complaint, on the complainant, upon obtaining special leave. The victim gets a right only as per the proviso to Section 413, wherefore he should squarely fall within the definition of Section 2(y).”

Accordingly, the Court said that the Appeal is not maintainable.

Finally, the Court dismissed the Appeal.