Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice K. V. Viswanathan, Supreme Court
Expression “Right To Prefer An Appeal” U/S 372 CrPC Also Includes “Right To Prosecute An Appeal”: Supreme Court
|The Supreme Court said 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.
The Supreme Court in its recent Judgment, held that under Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), the expression “the right to prefer an appeal” also includes the “right to prosecute an appeal”.
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, “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’. Mere filing of an appeal in the absence of prosecution of an appeal is of no avail. It does not fulfill the object with which the proviso has been added to Section 372 CrPC. Therefore, we interpret the expression ‘the right to prefer an appeal’ to also include the ‘right to prosecute an appeal’.”
The Bench said 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.
AOR Neema represented the Appellants while Senior Advocates Ratnakar Dash and Kawaljit Kochar represented the Respondents.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “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.”
The Court said 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.
“When this power under Article 136 is exercised by the Supreme Court by granting leave, the special leave petition would get converted into a criminal appeal. 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. More significantly, the appeal heard pursuant to Article 136 of the Constitution is not an appeal under Chapter XXIX CrPC”, it elucidated.
The Court further said that if in a situation, the Complainant who has preferred an Appeal under Section 378 CrPC dies, what would be the fate of the Appeal is not a question which arises in this case. Therefore, the Court kept the said question open to be adjudicated in any other appropriate case.
“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 observed.
The Court, therefore, condoned the delay in filing the application for seeking setting aside of the abatement is condoned and set aside the abatement.
“The application for substitution of applicant is allowed. Consequently, the applicant is permitted to be brought on record as the legal representative of the original appellant, apart from he being an injured victim also. Appellant’s counsel to file amended memo of parties”, it also ordered.
Conclusion
The Court was of the view that the High Court though being an appellate Court is akin to a Trial Court, must be convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that the prosecution's case is substantially true and that the guilt of the accused has been conclusively proven while considering an Appeal against a conviction.
“While the judgment need not be excessively lengthy, it must reflect a proper application of mind to crucial evidence. Albeit the High Court does not have the advantage to examine the witnesses directly, the High Court should, as an appellate Court, re-assess the facts, evidence on record and findings to arrive at a just conclusion in deciding whether the Trial Court was justified in convicting the accused or not. We are also cognizant of the large pendency of cases bombarding our courts. However, the same cannot come in the way of the Court’s solemn duty, particularly, when a person's liberty is at stake”, it remarked.
The Court concluded that the High Court ought to have considered the evidence on record in light of the arguments advanced at the bar and thereafter ascertained whether the Sessions Court was justified in passing the Judgment of conviction and imposing the sentence.
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)