03/06/2026
In the gravest of crimes r**e, murder, sexual violence, and offences that permanently alter human lives the law may describe the prosecution as a case between the State and the accused.
But for the victim, it is never just a “State matter" it is personal. It is personal loss. It is personal trauma. It is a lifelong pursuit of justice. And yet, in law practice, victims or their families are often reduced to the role of silent spectators watching proceedings that determine the future of their own pain, while having little real control over how their case is argued, pursued, or strategically presented before the Court by state public prosecutors or private lawyer.
This raises a fundamental question:
Why should the person who suffered the crime remain secondary in the very process meant to deliver justice?
If a victim has the financial means, the legal awareness, and the determination to actively pursue justice through an advocate of their own choice, that right should not remain merely procedural, symbolic, or dependent upon discretion. It deserves stronger statutory recognition, which is found nil in our judicial system.
In cases involving extreme violence and irreparable trauma, the victim should not be treated as an observer. The victim should be recognized as the primary stakeholder empowered to instruct counsel, participate meaningfully in strategy, remain informed at every stage, and ensure that their voice is not diluted within institutional procedure. The State undoubtedly has an obligation to prosecute crimes against society. But where the injury is deeply personal, irreversible, and life altering, the victim’s voice cannot be secondary. The State may protect public interest but the victim lives with the consequences. Perhaps it is time to rethink the law structure itself. In the most serious criminal prosecutions, should the victim remain on the sidelines while the system speaks on their behalf? or should the law recognize that justice is strongest when the victim is heard not as a witness to the crime but as an active participant in the pursuit of accountability?
Now the question is, whether Indian judiciary is accountable for their verdict or misdeed or mistake or lack of judicial wisdom?
