Page No.# 1/7 GAHC040008942026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(Crl)/47/2026 Tayo Tagio Son of Late Tayo Tarin @ Tarang, resident of Village Tayo, PO Chambang, PS Sangram, Kra Daadi District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS Khyoda Taking and 6 Ors Son of Late Khyoda Tee, resident of Village Paka, PO and PS Palin, Kra Daadi District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2:Khyoda Racho Age: 50 Occupation : Son of Shri Khyoda Tasang resident of Village Paka PO and PS Palin Kra Daadi District Arunachal Pradesh. 3:Khyoda Punung Age: 51 Occupation : Son of Late Khyoda Tee resident of Village Paka PO and PS Palin Kra Daadi District Arunachal Pradesh. 4:Khyoda Rath Age: 47 Occupation : Son of Shri Khyoda Tasang resident of Village Paka PO and PS Palin Kra Daadi District Page No.# 2/7 Arunachal Pradesh. 5:Khyoa Tudu Age: 42 Occupation : Son of Late Khyoda Teki resident of Village Paka PO and PS Palin Kra Daadi District Arunachal Pradesh. 6:Khyoda John Age: 32 Occupation : Son of Shri Khyoda Taking resident of Village Paka PO and PS Palin Kra Daadi District Arunachal Pradesh. 7:Khyoda Rade Age: 35 Occupation : Son of Shri Khyoa Taking resident of Village Paka PO and PS Palin Kra Daadi District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Radhe Millo, Advocate for the Respondent : Rajesh Sonar, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 12-08-2026 Heard Mr. R. Milo, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. R. Sonar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 7 and Ms. T. Jini, learned Additional. P.P. appearing for the State. Page No.# 3/7 2. The applicant by way of instituting the present interlocutory application has prayed for impleading himself as respondent No. 2, in the connected criminal revision petition being Crl. Revision Petition No. 37/2025. 3. The father of the applicant, late Tayo Tarin @ Tarang had lodged an FIR on 18-03- 2017 alleging, therein, that he was assaulted by the opposite party No. 1 and the other opposite parties. The said FIR was registered as Sangram P.S. Case No. 04/2017. 4. The police on conclusion of the investigation had laid charge-sheet in the matter before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Koloriang, in RNGR Case No. 97/2019. The learned Trial Court upon considering the issues arising in the matter proceeded vide judgment and order dated 25-09-2024, to convict the opposite party, herein, for the offences punishable under Section 341/ 323/ 34 Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved by their conviction and sentencing by the learned trial court, the opposite party, herein, had instituted an appeal before the court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Lower Subansiri District, Ziro. 5. It is to be noted that the informant/ victim was impleaded in the said appeal as respondent No. 2. The learned Appellate Court upon considering the issues arising before it in the said appeal and on hearing the learned counsel for the parties to the proceeding, proceeded vide judgment and order dated 07-11-2025, to dismiss the said appeal, thereby, affirming the conviction and sentencing of the opposite party, herein, by the learned Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 07-11-2025, passed by the learned Appellate Court, the opposite parties, herein, as petitioners had approached this Court by way of instituting a criminal revision petition being Crl. Revision Page No.# 4/7 Petition No. 37/2025. While filing the said revision petition, the appellants, herein, had impleaded the applicant, herein, as the respondent No. 2. However, by projecting that the victim in the case has passed away and the respondent No. 2, who was his son, his presence in the case may not be necessary, a prayer was made for deletion of his name from the array of parties. Accordingly, vide order dated 04-12-2025, this Court permitted for deletion of the name of the applicant, as respondent No. 2, in the connected revision petition. The applicant, accordingly, has instituted the present interlocutory application for impleading himself as respondent No. 2 in the connected revision petition. 6. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the victim in the case had passed on, on 10-08-2025, i.e. before filing of the connected criminal revision petition and the applicant was impleaded as respondent No. 2, however, his name was permitted to be deleted from the array of respondents in the matter. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant being the legal heir (son) of the deceased victim, he is competent and entitled to represent the interest of the deceased victim in the present proceeding. He further submits that he has no interest adverse to any other legal heirs of the deceased victim and is seeking impleadment solely for protecting and representing the interest of the victim, herein. 7. He submits that the provisions of Section 2(1)(y) defines ‘victim’ to also include his/ her guardian or legal heir. Accordingly, he submits that he being the legal heir, he is required to be permitted himself as respondent No. 2 in the connected revision petition. 8. Mr. R. Sonar, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party, has submitted that given the nature of the allegation leveled against the opposite parties, herein, the Page No.# 5/7 impleadment of the victim and or his legal heir is not mandated. He submits that it is for the said reason this Court vide order dated 04-12-2025 had permitted for striking off the name of the applicant, herein, as respondent No. 2 from the array of respondents in the connected revision petition. Mr. Sonar has further submitted that the State being duly represented; the State being the prosecutor in the matter, the interest of the victim and/ or his legal heirs in the matter would be taken care by the P.P./ Additional P.P., appearing in the matter. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials brought on record. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagjeet Singh & Ors. Vs. Ashish Mishra @ Monu & Ors., reported in (2022) 9 SCC 321, had concluded that a victim cannot be asked to await the commencement of trial for asserting his/ her right to participate in the proceedings. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that the victim had a legally vested right to be heard at every step, post the occurrence of an offence and had an unbridled participatory right, from the stage of investigation till culmination of the proceedings in an appeal or revision. The conclusions drawn by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this connection being relevant is extracted hereinbelow:- “22. It cannot be gainsaid that the right of a victim under the amended Cr.P.C. are substantive, enforceable, and are another facet of human rights. The victim’s right, therefore, cannot be termed or construed restrictively like a brutum fulmen. We reiterate that these rights are totally independent, incomparable, and are not accessory or auxiliary to those of the State under the Cr.P.C.. The presence of ‘State’ in the proceedings, therefore, does not tantamount to according a hearing to a ‘victim’ of the crime. 23. A ‘victim’ within the meaning of Cr.P.C. cannot be asked to await the commencement of trial for asserting his/her right to participate in the proceedings. Page No.# 6/7 He/She has a legally vested right to be heard at every step post the occurrence of an offence. Such a ‘victim’ has unbridled participatory rights from the stage of investigation till the culmination of the proceedings in an appeal or revision. We may hasten to clarify that ‘victim’ and ‘complainant/informant’ are two distinct connotations in criminal jurisprudence. It is not always necessary that the complainant/informant is also a ‘victim’, for even a stranger to the act of crime can be an ‘informant’, and similarly, a ‘victim’ need not be the complainant or informant of a felony. 24. The abovestated enunciations are not to be conflated with certain statutory provisions, such as those present in Special Acts like the Scheduled Cast and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, where there is a legal obligation to hear the victim at the time of granting bail. Instead, what must be taken note of is that; 24.1. First, the Indian jurisprudence is constantly evolving, whereby, the right of victims to be heard, especially in cases involving heinous crimes, is increasingly being acknowledged; 24.2. Second, where the victims themselves have come forward to participate in a criminal proceeding, they must be accorded with an opportunity of a fair and effective hearing. If the right to file an appeal against acquittal, is not accompanied with the right to be heard at the time of deciding a bail application, the same may result in grave miscarriage of justice. Victims certainly cannot be expected to be sitting on the fence and watching the proceedings from afar, especially when they may have legitimate grievances. It is the solemn duty of a court to deliver justice before the memory of an injustice eclipses.” 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that the definition of ‘victim’ under the provisions of Cr.P.C. was a wide and expansive one and the term ‘victim’ also included within its fold his or her guardian or legal heir. 12. Section 2(1)(y) of the BNSS, 2023 defines ‘victim’ to mean a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission of the accused person and includes the guardian and legal heir of such victim. 13. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagjeet Singh (Supra), as well as the definition of ‘victim’ as given in the provision of the Cr.P.C. as well as the BNSS, 2023, a participatory right is found to have been extended to the Page No.# 7/7 victim till culmination of proceeding in an appeal or revision. The term ‘victim’ also includes within its fold his or her guardian or legal heir, the respondent No. 2 being the son of the deceased victim, is his legal heir and accordingly, a participatory right is found to be conferred upon him to take part in the proceeding of the connected revision petition. 14. In view of the above discussions, the applicant, herein, viz. Tayo Tagio is permitted to be impleaded as respondent No. 2 in the connected criminal revision petition being Crl. Revision Petition No. 37/2025. 15. With the above observations and directions, the present interlocutory application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant