The main legal point established in the judgment is that the permission granted to a complainant to assist the Public Prosecutor does not include the right to conduct the trial independently. Additionally, the judgment emphasizes the rights of the victim introduced by the 31.12.2009 Amendment and the distinction between Sections 301 and 302 Cr.P.C.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

The moot question that falls for consideration in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is as to whether the complainant can conduct the trial when admittedly he has only sought and granted permission by the learned trial Court to assist and not conduct the trial.

2. This petition arises out of the order passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, H.P. in Cr.M.A. No. 6-4 of 2015 on 21.7.2015 whereby the application filed by the complainant/respondent under Sections 294 and 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, through his counsel, seeking permission to tender in evidence certified copies of the judgment passed by learned Sub Judge (II), Shimla in Case No. 62/I of 1985 titled Shri Radha Krishan Kuthiala versus Shri Gian Chand Kuthiala and copy of judgments dated 31.3.1998 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Shimla passed in Civil Appeal No.105/S/13 of 88/86 in case titled Shri Hari Krishan and others versus Shri Radha Krishan and others, came to be allowed.

3. Mr. K.D. Sood, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate, would vehemently contend that even if permission had been granted by the learned trial Magistrate to the respondent to assist the Public Prosecutor in the trial, it did not in any manner authorize the complainant/respondent to directly file the application in question, through his counsel, that too, without even associating the Public Prosecutor as this would not be assisting but would amount to conducting the trial itself.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Gautam Sood, learned counsel for the complainant/respondent would strenuously argue that once the permission has been granted to the complainant under Sections 301 and 302 Cr.P.C., then the complainant was not only entitle to assist the Public Prosecutor, but he could even conduct the trial independently.

5. Both the parties have placed reliance on the latest judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dhariwal Industries Ltd. vs. Kishore Wadhwani and others AIR 2016 SC 4369 to contend that the point in issue is squarely answered in their favour.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material placed on record carefully.

6. It would be noticed that prior to 31.12.2009 the concept of “victim” was virtually alien to the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008, brought about widespread amendments not only by introducing the definition of victim as Section 2 (wa) w.e.f. 31.12.2009, but various other provisions were also included in the Code for benefit of the victim. Thereby recognizing the importance and relevance of a “victim” in not only the process of investigation, enquiry, trial, but even in matters relating to appeal, revision etc.

7. The statement of objects and reasons for introducing the amendment inter alia mentions that “At present, the victims are the worst sufferers in a crime and they don’t have much role in the Court proceedings. They need to be given certain rights and compensation, so that there is no distortion of the criminal justice system.” 8. The definition of “victim” as found in Section 2 (wa) reads as under:

“Section 2 (wa) “victim” means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and the expression “victim” includes his or her guardian or legal heir.”

9. The new clause introduces a definition of “victim” to confer certain rights on the guardians and legal heirs of the victim like to engage an Advocate under Section 24 (8), right to file an appeal under proviso to Section 372, to claim compensation under new Section 357-A.

10. The Scheme behind the insertion of this new definition of “victim” is also apparent from the insertion of a proviso to Section 24 (8) of Cr.P.C., so as to enable a victim, or those who are covered by this definition, to engage an advocate of his/their choice to assist the prosecution. Since the entir