Informant’s Death Not Fatal to Criminal Revision; Rights of Other Victims Preserved

The criminal justice system in India has traditionally been perceived as a contest between the State and the accused, with the victim or informant playing a limited procedural role. Over the past two decades, however, statutory reforms and judicial interpretation have steadily expanded the space for victim participation. One such recurring procedural question concerns the fate of criminal revision proceedings when the original informant dies during their pendency.

These questions were authoritatively answered by the Supreme Court of India in Syed Shahnawaz Ali v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (2025 INSC 1484). The Court held that the death of an informant does not, by itself, cause a criminal revision to abate and that other victims of the offence may be permitted to assist the court. The ruling clarifies the law on abatement, revisional jurisdiction, and victim participation, and has significant implications for criminal procedure.

Factual Background of the Case

The controversy arose from a property-related criminal dispute. The father of the appellant, Shamshad Ali, filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) (Section 175 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), seeking registration of an FIR against several accused persons. The allegations involved serious offences such as cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code, 1860/Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Following the investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet for multiple offences. However, by an order dated 7 March 2020, the Sessions Court discharged the accused from all offences except Section 420 IPC (cheating)/ Section 318(4) of BNS. Aggrieved by this partial discharge, the informant filed a criminal revision before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.

During the pendency of the revision, the informant died. His son, who was also a witness in the case and had a direct interest in the disputed property, sought permission to continue the revision proceedings. The High Court rejected the application, holding that there was no provision for substitution in criminal revision proceedings and that the revision had abated upon the death of the revisionist. A subsequent recall application was also dismissed.

The matter then reached the Supreme Court, raising fundamental questions about abatement, substitution, and the nature of revisional jurisdiction.

Issue

• Does a Criminal Revision Abate on the Death of the Informant?

Abatement in Criminal Law

The Supreme Court began its analysis by explaining the concept of abatement. In criminal law, abatement typically signifies termination of proceedings without adjudication on merits, often because continuation has become legally or practically impossible.

In trials, abatement is straightforward. Since a criminal trial is against a specific accused, the death of the accused results in abatement of the trial. The rationale is self-evident: punishment cannot be imposed on a dead person.

Similarly, appeals against conviction generally abate on the death of the accused, subject to the proviso under Section 394(2) CrPC (Section 435 BNSS), which allows near relatives to continue an appeal to vindicate the deceased’s honour.

However, the Court emphasised that these principles do not automatically apply to revisional proceedings. Revisions are not a continuation of trials in the same sense as appeals; rather, they are supervisory in nature.

Nature and Scope of Revisional Jurisdiction

A central pillar of the judgment is the distinction between appellate and revisional powers. The Supreme Court reiterated that revisional jurisdiction is discretionary and supervisory. It exists to ensure the correctness, legality, and propriety of orders passed by subordinate courts and to prevent miscarriage of justice.

Relying on the Constitution Bench decision in Prabhu Narayan Singh v. State of West Bengal (often cited as Praban Kumar Mitra), the Court reaffirmed that a revision does not confer a vested right on the litigant. Instead, it preserves the High Court’s authority to supervise the administration of criminal justice.

Importantly, the Court noted that revisional power can even be exercised suo motu. This means that the identity or continued existence of the revisionist is not the sole foundation of the court’s jurisdiction. Once the High Court has entertained a revision and issued notice, it is ordinarily expected to decide the matter in accordance with the law.

Why Section 394 CrPC Does Not Apply to Revisions

The Court categorically held that Section 394 CrPC (Section 435 BNSS), which governs abatement of appeals, has no application to criminal revisions. The absence of a statutory provision for abatement of revisions is deliberate and significant.

The legislature, while enacting specific rules for abatement and substitution in appeals, consciously refrained from doing so in the context of revisions. This legislative silence cannot be interpreted to mean automatic abatement. On the contrary, it underscores the discretionary nature of revisional proceedings.

Thus, the High Court erred in mechanically applying the logic of appeals to revisions and in holding that the revision had abated merely because the informant died.

Role of the Revisionist: Informant vs Accused

The Supreme Court drew an important distinction between revisions filed by accused persons and those filed by informants or complainants.

If a revision is filed by an accused challenging an interlocutory order during trial, the death of the accused would ordinarily result in abatement because the main trial itself abates. Similarly, where a revision challenges a conviction, the court may decline to proceed after the accused’s death unless exceptional circumstances exist.

However, where the revision is filed by an informant or complainant, and the main trial continues despite the informant’s death, there is no justification for treating the revision as abated. In such cases, the revisional court remains duty-bound to examine the legality and propriety of the order under challenge.

Victim-Centric Interpretation and Section 2(wa) CrPC/ Section 2(1)(y) BNSS

A crucial aspect of the judgment is its reliance on the statutory definition of “victim” under Section 2(wa) CrPC. The provision defines a victim as a person who has suffered loss or injury as a result of the offence and includes the guardian or legal heir of such person.

The Court held that this definition provides a useful guiding principle for determining who may be permitted to assist the court in revisional proceedings. While strict rules of locus standi do not apply to revisions, the concept of “victim” ensures that the process is not hijacked by strangers with no genuine interest in the matter.

In the present case, the appellant, being the son and legal heir of the deceased informant and having a direct stake in the property allegedly affected by the forged documents, squarely fell within the definition of a victim. Denying him the opportunity to assist the court would defeat both procedural fairness and substantive justice.

No Absolute Right to Substitution, but Discretion to Permit Assistance

The Supreme Court carefully clarified that there is no absolute right of substitution in criminal revision proceedings. No person can claim, as a matter of right, to be substituted in place of a deceased revisionist.

However, the absence of a right to substitution does not mean that the court’s hands are tied. The revisional court retains the discretion to allow an appropriate person, particularly a victim, to assist it in effectively discharging its statutory function.

This nuanced approach balances two competing concerns. On the one hand, it prevents misuse of revisional jurisdiction by uninterested third parties. On the other hand, it ensures that legitimate victims are not shut out merely due to procedural rigidity.

Error of the High Court and the Supreme Court’s Final Ruling

Applying these principles, the Supreme Court held that the High Court’s orders dismissing the revision as abated and rejecting the appellant’s application were legally unsustainable. The High Court failed to appreciate the nature of revisional jurisdiction and the continued pendency of the criminal trial against the accused.

The Supreme Court restored the criminal revision to the file of the High Court and permitted the appellant to assist the court in his capacity as a victim. It clarified that no opinion was being expressed on the merits of the revision itself, which was to be decided independently and expeditiously.

The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra of the Supreme Court of India, reinforcing long-standing principles while aligning them with contemporary victim-centric criminal jurisprudence.

Key Highlights of the Decision

Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Manoj Misra stated: 

"Since strict rule of locus does not apply to a revision proceeding, on death of a revisionist, the law of abatement that applies to an appeal does not apply to a revision proceeding, more particularly when revision is not at the instance of an accused. However, where the revision is at the instance of an accused/convict, the revisional court may refuse to continue the proceedings on his death, inter alia, where (a) the revisional proceeding emanates from an order passed during trial; or (b) the revisional proceeding is against an order of conviction, or affirmance of conviction.

In situation (a), on death of accused the trial would abate and so would ancillary proceedings emanating therefrom. In situation (b), the sentence or fine cannot be executed against a dead person, therefore, in absence of any application from a person seeking leave to pursue the revision, the court may terminate the proceedings as having abated. However, where the revision is at the instance of an informant or a complainant, on his death, the proceedings will not abate and, therefore, revisional court may exercise its discretion and proceed to test the correctness, legality or propriety of an order passed by the court subordinate to it."

Broader Implications of the Judgment

This decision has far-reaching implications for criminal procedure in India.

• It settles the long-standing ambiguity regarding abatement of criminal revisions, clearly distinguishing them from appeals. High Courts can no longer dismiss revisions filed by informants as abated solely due to death.
• It strengthens the role of victims in the criminal process. By recognising the right of other victims or legal heirs to assist the court, the judgment aligns procedural law with the broader shift towards victim justice.
• It reinforces the supervisory responsibility of the High Courts. Revisional jurisdiction is not merely a private remedy but a public function aimed at ensuring legality and fairness in the criminal justice system.
• The judgment promotes substantive justice over procedural formalism. It ensures that serious questions regarding discharge, framing of charges, or legality of orders are not left unexamined merely because the original informant is no longer alive.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Syed Shahnawaz Ali v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. marks an important milestone in criminal procedural law. By holding that the death of an informant does not automatically abate a criminal revision and by recognising the participatory rights of other victims, the Court has reinforced the principle that criminal justice is not a technical game but a pursuit of fairness, legality, and truth.

The judgment harmonises classical doctrines of revisional jurisdiction with modern victim-centric reforms. It sends a clear message that procedural gaps cannot be used to defeat substantive justice and that courts must remain vigilant in supervising criminal proceedings, even when the original litigant is no longer alive.

In doing so, the Supreme Court has ensured that the voice of the victim does not fall silent with death and that the administration of criminal justice continues to serve its fundamental purpose.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams