The Supreme Court in the case of
Mallikarjun Kodagali v. State of Karnataka & Ors., has held that the victim of a crime should have a say in the punishment of the criminal.
A Bench of
Justices Madan B. Lokur, S. Abdul Nazeer and Deepal Gupta holding that punishment should be “meaningful” to the victim also has said that “it is necessary to seriously consider giving a hearing to the victim while awarding the sentence to a convict.” Justice Lokur, who wrote the judgment, observed that “a victim impact statement or a victim assessment must be given due recognition so that an appropriate punishment is awarded to the convict.”
What may be ‘justice’ in the rule book may not serve the victim. Taking another step further, Justice Lokur said even taking a statement from the victim on the sentence of the convict may not mean relief to the victim. “The husband of a young married woman gets killed in a fight or a violent dispute. How is the young widow expected to look after herself in such circumstances, which could be even more traumatic if she had a young child? It is true that a victim impact statement or assessment might result in an appropriate sentence being awarded to the convict, but that would not necessarily result in ‘justice’ to the young widow,” Justice Lokur said. In this regard, Justice Lokur observed that the answer perhaps lies in the rehabilitation of the widow rather than merely ensuring that the criminal gets a life sentence for his crime. “Today, the rights of an accused far outweigh the rights of the victim of an offence in many respects…There needs to be some balancing…we still have a long way to go to bring the rights of victims of crime to the centre stage and to recognize them as human rights,” Justice Lokur wrote in the judgment. The matter came up before the court in an appeal filed by MallikarjunKodagali, a victim of an attack in February 2009, whose appeal was rejected by the Karnataka High Court in 2014. Aggrieved by the decision the victim moved the apex court which set aside the Karnataka High Court’s decision.
Karnataka HC hears PIL Challenging Cattle Slaughter Prevention Ordinance brought in by the Government of Karnataka [READ PETITION]
Judiciary
Jan 14, 2021
Gautami Chakravarty
(
Editor: Ekta Joshi
)
5 Shares
The High Court of Karnataka on 12th January, 2020 heard a petition against a recent ordinance on prevention of cattle slaughter brought by the Government of Karnataka. The petition was filed by Mohammed Arif Jameel challenging the Karnataka Prevention of Slaughter and Preservation of Cattle Ordinance, 2020. The division bench consisted of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum who issued a notice while hearing the petition. The petitioner’s Advocate Rahamathulla...
Karnataka High Court Dismisses Pleas to Stop Non-Hindus From Working in Offices Under HRICE Act,1997
Judiciary
Dec 16, 2020
Dev Kumar Patel
(
Editor: Ekta Joshi
)
6 Shares
The Karnataka High Court on 14th December 2020 dismissed writ petitions which sought that non-Hindus should not be permitted to work in the office of Commissioners under the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997.A bench headed by Chief Justice Abhay S Okaremarked that "The Hindu religion was never so narrow. Hindu religion as professed never consisted of people who are so narrow minded."Highlighted points of the writ petitions as follows:Strict...
Facebook Comments