Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 461 (JHR)

Mukesh Jaiswal v. State of Jharkhand

2014-04-01

R.R.PRASAD

body2014
ORDER Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been put on trial for an offence under Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was convicted, vide judgment dated 26.02.2014.Thereupon the court for the purpose of hearing on the point of sentence issued notice to the victim girl through her mother and father, vide its order dated 28.2.2014. That order has been challenged. 3. According to Mr.Sinha, there has been no provision in the Code for issuance of notice to the informant/victim for the purpose of hearing on the point of sentence which the court has even in its order has recorded it but the court, keeping in view the definition of the victim defined under Section 2(wa) and also proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure under which right has been vested with the victim to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal, has issued notice but those two provisions are not at all relevant for the purpose to hear the victim on the point of sentence and therefore, the court committed illegality in issuing notice for hearing the victim on the point of sentence. 4. There has been no denying of the fact that the Code does not contain any provision giving right to the victim to be heard on the point of sentence and therefore, it can safely be said that the victim does not have any right to be heard on the point of sentence. 5. However, at this stage the provision as contained in sub-section (2) of Section 301 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be taken notice of which reads as under: “If any such case any private person instructs a pleader to prosecute any person in any Court, the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of the case shall conduct the prosecution, and the 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 evidence is closed in the case. 6. 6. From its perusal it does appear that though the private person does not have any right to participate in the trial but certainly he/she does have right to instruct the Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor to assist him in the matter and further he/she does have right to file written argument but of course with the permission of the court. 7. In that view of the matter, the victim if has been noticed by the court, can assist Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in the matter through a Lawyer and may with the permission of the court submit written argument. 8. With this observation, this application stands disposed of. 9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through FAX at the cost of the petitioner.