The Victims Right to Receive Investigation Updates

Section 193(3), BNSS 2023 — the substance

The police officer shall, within ninety days, inform the informant or the victim, as the case may be, of the progress of the investigation by such means including through electronic communication as the State Government may, by rules, provide.

And further: where the investigation is closed and the report recommends that no further proceedings be taken, the officer shall communicate the action taken to the informant, so that he may contest the closure before the Magistrate.

📖 Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab, (1979) 4 SCC 719

Facts: In the course of disposing of a criminal appeal, the Supreme Court considered the position of the person injured by the offence within the criminal justice system, and the extent to which the system takes account of him at all.

Held: The Supreme Court observed that it is a weakness of our jurisprudence that the victims of crime do not attract the attention of the law, and that the victim, in particular, remains by and large the forgotten man in the criminal justice system. The Court held that the focus of the criminal process is on the offender — his guilt, his punishment, his rights and his reformation — and that the person who has actually suffered the wrong figures in it chiefly as a source of evidence. It observed that victimology must find a place in the system, and that the provisions permitting compensation to the person injured should be used liberally and as a matter of course rather than as an afterthought. The Court emphasised that a system which takes no account of the victim’s position does not command his confidence, and that his participation and his compensation are matters the law must attend to if the process is to be regarded as just by those it most concerns.

Ratio: The victim is by and large the forgotten man in the criminal justice system, appearing chiefly as a source of evidence. Victimology must find a place in the process, and provisions for compensating the person injured should be used liberally.

📖 Amanullah v. State of Bihar, (2016) 6 SCC 699

Facts: A question arose as to who may invoke the jurisdiction of a court in a criminal matter, and in particular whether a person other than the immediate complainant has the standing to be heard in a proceeding concerning an offence which affected him.

Held: The Supreme Court held that the expression person aggrieved is not to be construed narrowly in the criminal jurisdiction, and that a person who has suffered a legal injury by reason of the offence, or who has a genuine grievance in relation to the proceeding, is entitled to be heard. The Court held that locus standi in criminal matters is wider than in civil proceedings, because the criminal law is administered in the public interest and not merely for the vindication of a private right; and that a court should be slow to shut out a person who has a real connection with the subject-matter on a technical objection to his standing. It emphasised that the victim and the informant stand on a footing of their own, and that the law recognises their interest in the proceeding even where they are not formally parties to it.

Ratio: The expression person aggrieved is not to be construed narrowly in criminal jurisdiction, and locus standi is wider than in civil proceedings. A victim or informant has a recognised interest in the proceeding even where not formally a party.

⚠ Three practical points

The duty is unconditional. The victim does not have to apply for the information, and an officer who waits to be asked has not complied. Nor is a general assurance that the matter is being looked into a compliance with a duty to report progress.

The ninety days run from the beginning of the investigation, not from a request. An officer who has done nothing by the ninetieth day is obliged to say so — which is, in practice, the provision’s sharpest edge.

And the intimation of closure is the more important of the two. A victim who is told that a final report has been filed recommending no further proceedings can file a protest petition; a victim who is never told loses that opportunity altogether, and often discovers the closure months later when it is too late to do anything about it.

The position stated shortly

1. Section 193(3)(ii): the police officer shall, within ninety days, inform the informant or the victim of the progress of the investigation.

2. The means may be electronic communication, in such form as the State Government prescribes by rules.

3. The duty is an obligation on the officer. It does not depend on the victim asking, and is not discharged by inviting him to come and enquire.

4. It is a duty to report progress, not merely existence. A communication saying only that the matter is under investigation does not answer the section.

5. Where the investigation is closed, the victim must be informed — which is what enables him to file a protest petition before the Magistrate.

6. The provision is one link in a chain: section 173(1) (free copy of the FIR), section 230 (documents within fourteen days), section 360 (heard before withdrawal), section 404 (copy of the judgment) and the proviso to section 413 (appeal without leave).

7. Under the Code the victim appeared chiefly as a witness; under the Sanhita he is a participant with a right to know.

8. The victim has long been the forgotten man of the criminal justice system, figuring in it chiefly as a source of evidence: Rattan Singh.

9. The expression person aggrieved is not to be construed narrowly in criminal jurisdiction, and the victim has a recognised interest in the proceeding even where not formally a party: Amanullah.

10. The ninety days run from the beginning of the investigation, not from a request — so an officer who has done nothing by the ninetieth day is obliged to say so.