Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice K.V. Viswanathan, Supreme Court
Victim Of Offence Has Right To Prefer Appeal U/S 372 CrPC Irrespective Of Whether He Is Complainant Or Not: Supreme Court
|The Supreme Court clarified that the expression “right to prefer an appeal” in the proviso to Section 372 CrPC cannot be limited to mean “only the filing of an appeal”.
The Supreme Court held that the victim of an offence has the right to prefer an Appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), irrespective of whether he is a Complainant or not.
The Court held thus in Criminal Appeals preferred against the common Judgment of the Uttarakhand High Court, which allowed Appeals of the accused persons.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan observed, “As already noted, the proviso to Section 372 CrPC was inserted in the statute book only with effect from 31.12.2009. The object and reason for such insertion must be realised and must be given its full effect to by a court. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the victim of an offence has the right to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, irrespective of whether he is a complainant or not. Even if the victim of an offence is a complainant, he can still proceed under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC and need not advert to sub-section (4) of Section 378 CrPC.”
The Bench clarified that the expression “right to prefer an appeal” in the proviso to Section 372 CrPC cannot be limited to mean “only the filing of an appeal”.
AOR Neema represented the Appellants while Senior Advocates Ratnakar Dash and Kawaljit Kochar represented the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
The Respondents were three accused persons in the Sessions Court who were charged under Sections 148, 452, 302, 307, 149, 326, and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). As per the prosecution case, there was a long-standing previous enmity between the Respondents and other accused and the original informant and others. In 1992, there was some heated exchange between them. The next day the informant, his brother, and his son were allegedly attacked by the accused persons using guns, sharp weapons, and bricks. Resultantly, the informant’s brother passed away and he and his son sustained injuries.
The Sessions Court after examining all the material witnesses and after hearing both the parties, acquitted the other accused on the ground that the role assigned to them was not fully proved. However, it found that the case against the Respondents-accused was fully proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The Respondents filed Appeals before the High Court, which were allowed. Being aggrieved, the Appellants approached the Apex Court. During the pendency of the Appeals, the Appellant’s son filed an Application seeking setting aside of the abatement and for substitution.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “The right to prefer an appeal is no doubt a statutory right and such a right in an accused against a conviction is not merely a statutory right but can also be construed to be a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. If that is so, then the right of a victim of an offence to prefer an appeal cannot be equated with the right of the State or the complainant to prefer an appeal unless the victim is also the complainant.”
The Court added that the statutory rigours for filing of an Appeal by the State or by a Complainant against an Order of acquittal cannot be read into the proviso to Section 372 CrPC so as to restrict the right of a victim to file an Appeal on the grounds mentioned therein, when none exists.
“We find that on the recommendation made by the Law Commission, the Parliament inserted the proviso in order to give an independent right to a victim to prefer an appeal under the circumstances mentioned under the proviso. This is de hors an appeal that could be filed by the complainant under Section 378(4) CrPC. The object and purpose of giving an independent right to a victim to prefer an appeal is particularly in a case where a complainant may not file an appeal and the State also would decide not to prefer an appeal as against the acquittal or award of a lesser sentence to an accused. If we bear in mind the object with which the amendment has been made by the Parliament, we find that the victim has every right to prefer an appeal as against a conviction for a lesser offence or for imposing inadequate compensation or even in the case of an acquittal of an accused as stated in the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. There is no doubt that in the instant cases they are cases of acquittal of the accused by the High Court”, it enunciated.
The Court said that mere filing of an Appeal in the absence of prosecution of an Appeal is of no avail and it does not fulfill the object with which the proviso has been added to Section 372 CrPC; therefore, the expression “the right to prefer an appeal” also includes the “right to prosecute an appeal”.
“Then, if during the pendency of an appeal, the original appellant dies, can it be said that his legal heir cannot be substituted so as to prosecute the appeal further? Any curtailing of the legal right to prosecute an appeal on the death of an original appellant by his legal heir would make the proviso to Section 372 CrPC wholly redundant and in fact may result in a situation which is contrary to the entire object with which the Parliament had inserted the proviso to Section 372 CrPC”, it added.
The Court further noted that the Parliament has been conscious to expand the definition of the word ‘victim’ to not only include the victim himself who had suffered the loss or injury but also to include his legal heir. It asked that when a legal heir, who is not a complainant or an injured victim, can prefer an Appeal then why not his legal heir on the death of the legal heir who had preferred the Appeal be permitted to prosecute the Appeal?
“We see no reason to curtail the right of a legal heir, who had preferred the original appeal, to be denied the right to prosecute the appeal. In the instant cases, the applicant, who is seeking substitution, is the legal heir of the victim who had preferred the appeal before this Court and is also an injured victim”, it remarked.
The Court emphasised that it should closely scrutinise the motives and urges of those who seek to employ its process against the life or liberty of another and that the Court should entertain a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by a private party, other than the complainant, in those cases only where it is convinced that the public interest justifies an Appeal against the acquittal and that the State has refrained from Petition for special leave for reasons which do not bear on the public interest but are prompted by private influence, want of bona fide and other extraneous considerations.
“Therefore, locus standi of the petitioner must be recognised in law. It was observed that the petitioner therein had failed to establish that there was a case for interfering with the judgment of this Court allowing the appeal and hence, the writ petition was dismissed”, it also said.
Conclusion
Furthermore, the Court observed that the expression “prefer an appeal” in proviso to Section 372 CrPC has to be given an expanded meaning to include prosecution of an appeal or effectively pursue an appeal.
“According to Black’s Law Dictionary, the word “prefer” means “to bring before; to prosecute; to try; to proceed with. Thus, preferring an indictment signifies prosecuting or trying an indictment”, it reiterated.
The Court explained that if during the pendency of the Special Leave Petition or the Criminal Appeal, the Appellant dies, the heir of the Appellant must be given an opportunity to prosecute the Appeal irrespective of whether the heir is a victim of the criminal offence.
“In the circumstances, we find that in the instant case, the applicant, being heir of the victim, has the right to continue these appeals irrespective of the fact that he is an injured victim. In that view of the matter also, we find that the application for substitution has to be allowed”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeals, remanded the case to the High Court, and requested it to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible.
Cause Title- Khem Singh (D) Through LRs v. State of Uttaranchal (Now State of Uttarakhand) & Another Etc. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1024)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Neema, Advocates Aruni Poddar, Ekta Muyal, Anit Kumar, and Shivani Kumari.
Respondents: Senior Advocates Ratnakar Dash, Kawaljit Kochar, AORs Manan Verma, Anu Gupta, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Bhargava V. Desai, Advocates Ajay Veer Pundir, Ali Jethmalani, Sanjana Wason, Anurag Tomar, Anil Makhija, Shivam Sharma, Deepanshu, and Utkarsh Vats.