Victim Cannot Appeal Against Inadequate Sentence U/S 372 CrPC; Such Remedy Lies Only With The State: Patna High Court

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by the victim seeking enhancement of the sentence and addition of further penal provisions, invoking the proviso to Section 372 CrPC.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Alok Kumar Pandey, while dismissing the appeal, observed: “A reading of the proviso makes it clear that so far as the victim’s right of the appeal is concerned, the same is restricted to three eventualities, namely, acquittal of the accused; conviction of the accused for a lesser offence; or for imposing inadequate compensation”.

Justice Pandey further explained that “…while the victim is given the opportunity to prefer appeal in the event of imposing inadequate compensation, at the same time, there is no provision for appeal by the victim for questioning the order of sentence as inadequate, whereas Section 377 Cr.PC gives the power to the State Government to prefer an appeal for enhancement of sentence.”

Background

The appeal was instituted by the victim against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court, in a POCSO case.

The victim sought an enhancement of the sentence and also urged that additional penal provisions ought to have been applied.

The maintainability of the appeal was questioned on the ground that Section 372 CrPC does not permit a victim to file an appeal for enhancement of sentence, and that such power is statutorily reserved for the State Government under Section 377 CrPC.

Court’s Observation

The Patna High Court undertook a detailed interpretation of Section 372 CrPC and its proviso. The Bench noted that the main provision creates a general bar on appeals unless specifically provided under the Code or any other law.

The proviso to Section 372 CrPC, the Court held, carves out a limited statutory right in favour of the victim to prefer an appeal only in three specified situations, where the accused is acquitted, where the accused is convicted for a lesser offence, or where inadequate compensation is awarded.

The Court emphasised that while the proviso enables a victim to challenge inadequate compensation, it does not create any right in favour of the victim to challenge the sentence as being inadequate.

The Bench contrasted the proviso to Section 372 with Section 377 CrPC, which expressly empowers the State Government to file an appeal seeking enhancement of sentence.

Relying on precedents, including the decision of the Supreme Court in National Commission for Women v. State of Delhi (2010), the Court reiterated that the right to seek enhancement of sentence is vested only in the State, and that a victim cannot maintain an appeal on that ground under Section 372 CrPC.

Consequently, the Court concluded that “…while it is open for the State Government to prefer an appeal for inadequate sentence under Section 377, Cr.PC, but similarly, no appeal can be maintained by the victim under Section 372, Cr.PC on the ground of inadequate sentence”.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court were affirmed.

Cause Title: XXX v. State of Bihar & Anr.

Appearances

Appellant: Advocates Ajay Kumar & Awadhesh Kumar

Respondents: Ramchandra Singh, A.P.P., Ramji Kumar, Advocate

Click here to read/download Judgment