In a significant judgment, the Kerala High Court has ruled that for a person to be considered a victim under Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), there must be perceivable harm to their mind or reputation. The court dismissed an appeal filed by Musthafa V.M., who claimed to be a victim in a conspiracy case, stating that a mere possibility of injury is insufficient to grant victim status.
The judgment was delivered by Justice P.G. Ajithkumar in Criminal Appeal (V) No. 895 of 2018, which challenged the acquittal order in SC No. 669 of 2015 of the Additional Sessions Court-V, Kozhikode.
Background of the Case
The case originated from Crime No. 917/2014 of Koyilandy Police Station, Kozhikode. Eight respondents were charged under Sections 118, 115, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly conspiring to cause the death of the appellant, Musthafa V.M., who was the former husband of one Jeseera. The prosecution claimed that a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs was agreed upon as a reward for the conspiracy.
On June 15, 2014, two of the respondents were intercepted by the police, leading to the unearthing of the alleged conspiracy. However, after the trial, the Additional Sessions Judge-V, Kozhikode, acquitted all the accused due to insufficient evidence.
Legal Issues and Court’s Decision
The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the appellant, Musthafa V.M., could be considered a “victim” under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC, thereby granting him the right to appeal against the acquittal.
The court delved into the interpretation of “injury” as defined in Section 44 of the Indian Penal Code and its application in the context of Section 2(wa) of the CrPC. Justice Ajithkumar observed:
“Going by the definition in Section 44 of the IPC, harm caused to the mind or reputation is sufficient to cause injury. A person who suffers any loss or injury on account of the act of the accused is a victim under Section 2(wa) of the Code. But when the phraseology says that a person has suffered any ‘loss or injury’ caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged, the term injury takes the shade of the word loss.”
The court emphasized that the right of appeal for victims, introduced by the 2009 amendment to the CrPC, requires a restricted interpretation. Justice Ajithkumar stated:
“A possibility of injury to the mind or reputation is not enough to mean injury for the purpose of Section 2(wa) of the Code. There must be some harm to the mind or reputation which can be perceived from the materials on record in order for the person to be a ‘victim’ entitled to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code.”
Based on this interpretation, the court concluded that Musthafa V.M. did not fall within the purview of the definition of a victim under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC, and therefore, had no right to prefer an appeal challenging the judgment of acquittal.
Also Read
Parties and Legal Representation
– Appellant: Musthafa V.M., represented by Advocates R. Sudhish and M. Manju
– Respondents: Prajeesh and 7 others, represented by Advocates K. Nirmalan, J.R. Prem Navaz, A. Rajasimhan, and Sumin S.
– State of Kerala: Represented by Public Prosecutor Sheeba Thomas
