The victim has a legally vested right to be heard at every step post the occurrence of an offence, and the victim's right to participate in the proceedings is substantive, enforceable, and another facet of human rights.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 20.06.2006 passed by learned Sub Judge (Judicial Magistrate), Kishtwar whereby the learned Magistrate on presentation of the closure report by the police in FIR No. 75/2004 registered with Police Station, Kishtwar, punishable under Section 302 RPC and 7/27 Arms Act, has accepted the closure report without hearing the victim's father or the persons related to him.

2. The father of the victim being aggrieved of the order impugned filed the present petition on the ground that the trial Court before accepting the closure report ought to have given him notice regarding the closure report of the case as acceptance of the closure report is related to the killing of his son who has died in the incident which was being investigated by the police.

3. Mr. R.K.S Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to the report of the police wherein one of the accused persons shown to be responsible for the killing has been named and further it has been submitted that the father of the deceased had made an application to the police wherein he has shown a suspicion regarding the involvement of certain persons in the murder of his son and it is further contended that the police despite the suspicion has closed the case without taking proper enquiry/investigation of the case.

4. Ms. Monika Kohli, learned Sr. AAG submits that the application made by the father of the deceased in which he had indicated his suspicion regarding involvement of some persons in the murder of his son was investigated and they were found not to be involved in the case. She further submits that the case has been properly investigated by the police and thereafter the closure report has been submitted before the competent Court of law.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that while going through the record it is clear that even the police while investigating the incident has not recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. His main submission is that before closure report is accepted, the learned Magistrate ought to have given a notice to the aggrieved persons so that they could have been heard and after hearing them, the learned Magistrate should have passed the order. In support of his contention, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to a judgment decided on 18.04.2022 by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 632 of 2022 title Jagjeet Singh & Ors. v. Ashish Mishra @ Monu & Anr. He has taken me through paragraph nos. 21 to 24 of the aforementioned judgment which reads as under:

21. It is pertinent to mention that the legislature has thoughtfully given a wide and expansive meaning to the expression 'victim' which "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."

22. This Court, in Mallikarjun Kodagali (Dead) v. State of Karnataka & Ors, while dealing with questions regarding a victim's right to file an appeal under section 372 of Cr.P.C, observed that there was need to give adequate representation to victims in criminal proceedings. The Court therein affirmed the victim's right to file an appeal against an order of acquittal. In Mallikarjun Kodagali, through the Court was primarily concerned with a different legal issue, it will be fruitful in the present context to take note of some of the observations made therein:

"3. What follows in a trial is often secondary victimisation through repeated appearances in court in a hostile or a semi-hostile environment in the courtroom. Till sometime back, secondary victimization was in the form of aggressive and intimidating cross-examination, but a more humane interpretation of the provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872 has made the trial a little less uncomfortable for the victim of an offence, particularly the victim of a sexual crime. In