The victim is not a necessary party in criminal proceedings against a conviction for crimes against women or children under POCSO or any other law.
More recently, in the case of Ganesh Das v State, the High Court of Calcutta, the legal rights, eligibility and interests of a victim in an appeal against conviction would be satisfactory if the state exercises our role conscientiously and vigilantly in criminal matters and the prosecutors who perform their duties and responsibilities under the provisions of Cr.PC and other applicable laws.
According to the facts, the complainant was found guilty and punished for a criminal offense under Section 376 (3) of the Indian Criminal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. He was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000 / – and in default of imposing a year imprisonment for the criminal offense under Section 376 (3) IPC. It was advised that the victim is entitled to receive the said fine of Rs. 10,000 / -, if implemented, with regard to the second provision of § 357 Cr.PC It turned out that the complaint would be flawed because the victim was not a party in this application.
The court ruled that the victim is not a necessary party in criminal proceedings against a conviction for crimes against women or children under the provisions of the IPC or POCSO Act or any other criminal provision relating to crimes against the human body Criminal offenses apply, “woman” and / or “child” are punishable, both expressions being understood in the context of the respective legislation dealing with such offenses.
Also, the procedure that applies in all of these appeals is to deal with those appeals without insisting on the victim’s request. In cases in which the appellate court considers further assistance beyond the assistance of the public prosecutor to be necessary to safeguard the interests of the victim through legal aid, the HCLSC or the relevant DLSA can be asked for assistance from a qualified or other lawyer, such as the HCLSC or the concerned DLSA decided. Even in such cases, however, the Court must insist that the principles of dignity and privacy and the safeguarding of these values described above are scrupulously observed.