Brother Of Deceased Married Woman Qualifies As 'Victim' Under CrPC, Entitled To Participate In Husband's Appeal Against Murder Conviction: Patna High Court
Safiya Malik
The Patna High Court Division Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Dr. Anshuman held that the brother of a deceased married woman qualifies as a "victim" under the Code of Criminal Procedure and is entitled to participate in criminal proceedings arising from the offence. The Court was considering an application filed by the brother of a woman who died of a gunshot injury, seeking to be added as a party respondent in an appeal filed by the convict-husband challenging his murder conviction. The Court allowed the application, permitting the brother to intervene in the appeal.
The deceased, a married woman, sustained a gunshot injury, after which her husband lodged a complaint leading to registration of a case under Section 307 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. Upon her death, Section 302 of the IPC was added. During investigation, the police concluded that the informant himself had fired at his wife, and a charge-sheet was submitted under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. He was subsequently convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Also Read: Supreme Court Issues Directions For Enforcement Of Solid Waste Management Rules 2026
In the appeal against conviction, the brother of the deceased filed an application seeking impleadment as a party respondent, claiming status as a “victim” under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC. Counsel for the appellant contended that the applicant was neither the guardian nor the legal heir of the deceased and therefore not entitled to contest the appeal. The Court examined the definition of “victim” under the CrPC and the scheme of succession under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to determine the applicant’s locus.
The Bench recorded at the outset, “The intervenor petitioner is the brother of the deceased.” It noted that the applicant sought to be added as a party respondent on the ground that he was the victim of the incident.
While considering the objection raised by the appellant, the Court reproduced the statutory definition, stating: “The ‘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.” The submission on behalf of the appellant was recorded that the applicant was neither guardian nor legal heir.
The Bench stated, “We have given an anxious thought over the matter.” It further recorded, “We are in agreement with the submission made by Mr. Thakur that the petitioner is not the guardian of the deceased.” The Court added, “In respect of a married lady, her husband is the guardian.”
Turning to the question of legal heirship, the Court referred to Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and extracted the statutory provision governing succession of property of a female Hindu dying intestate. After reproducing the relevant clauses, the Bench stated, “A married lady has right over the property of his father and the brother of a female Hindu comes within the category of legal heir according to Clause (d) of sub-section 1 of Section 15 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956.” It then concluded, “In such view of the matter, the brother of a deceased married lady is a legal heir of the deceased victim for the purpose of contesting a criminal case/appeal, and as such, he is considered to be a victim, in our opinion.”
With respect to participation in the appeal, the Court observed, “The proviso to sub-section (8) of Section 24 clearly empowers the Court to permit the victim to engage an advocate of his or her choice to assist the prosecution under the said provision.” It further noted that the petitioner, being the legal heir, sought to intervene by engaging counsel.
The Bench concluded, “Considering the conspectus of the matter discussed above, we are of the view that the instant application is ought to be allowed and accordingly, the I.A. No. 01 of 2025 stands allowed. Further, the name of the applicant be added as respondent no. 2 in the instant Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1486 of 2025.”
“The office is directed to incorporate the name of the petitioner as respondent no. 2 in the instant appeal. The learned Advocate on behalf of the appellant is directed to serve a copy of memo of appeal to the learned Advocate for the applicant within one week from the date of this order. The instant appeal be listed under the heading ‘For Admission’ at the earliest.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate; Ms. Vaishnavi Singh, Advocate; Mr. Ritwik Thakur, Advocate; Md. Imtiyaz Ahmad, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, APP
For the Intervenor: Mr. Jai Prakash Verma, Advocate
Case Title: Manoj Kumar v. State of Bihar
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1486 of 2025
Bench: Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Dr. Anshuman
