Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s. 372 proviso (introduced w.e.f. 31.12.2009) – Right of appeal against acquittal to the victim of an offence – Requirement of seeking leave of the High Court – On facts, alleged offence took place in February 2009 – Order of acquittal passed by the trial court in October 2013 – Appeal filed under proviso to s. 372 by the victim – Dismissed by the High Court as not maintainable holding that the proviso to s. 372 introduced w.e.f. 31.12.2009 but the incident had occurred well before that date – On appeal, held: (Per Lokur J) ‘Victim’ as defined in the Cr.P.C. has a right of appeal in view of the proviso to s. 372 against an order of acquittal in a case where the alleged offence took place prior to 31.12.2009 but the order of acquittal was passed by the trial court after 31.12.2009 – Victim can file appeal without seeking leave to appeal against the order of acquittal – Held: (Per Gupta J: Partly dissenting) When the victim files an appeal against acquittal in the High Court he has to seek leave to appeal u/s. 378(3) CrPC.
s. 372 proviso – Connotation of – Held: Proviso to s. 372 must be given a meaning that is realistic, liberal, progressive and beneficial to the victim of an offence.
Criminal law: Rights of victims of crime – Held: Rights of an accused far outweigh the rights of the victim of an offence in many respects – There needs to be some balancing of the concerns and equalising their rights so that the criminal proceedings are fair to both – Judiciary is obliged to go and has gone beyond merely awarding compensation and has taken into consideration the larger picture from the perspective of the victim of an offence – Rights of victims, and indeed victimology, is an evolving jurisprudence and it is more than appropriate to move forward in a positive direction, rather than stand still or worse, take a step backward – Voice given to victims of crime by Parliament and the judiciary, needs to be heard, and if not heard, to be raised to a higher decibel. Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: Per Madan B. Lokur, J (for himself & S. Abdul Nazeer,J.):
1.1 The right to file an appeal is a substantive right and it should not be easily recognized unless specifically conferred by statute. It has been held that the right to appeal is not a mere matter of procedure but is a substantive right. [Para 71][34-D] Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhry [1957] SCR 488 – followed.
1.2 It is significant that several High Courts have taken a consistent view to the effect that the victim of an offence has a right of appeal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. This view is in consonance with the plain language of the proviso. But what is more important is that several High Courts have also taken the view that the date of the alleged offence has no relevance to the right of appeal. It has been held that the significant date is the date of the order of acquittal passed by the trial court. In a sense, the cause of action arises in favour of the victim of an offence only when an order of acquittal is passed and if that happens after 31st December, 2009 the victim has a right to challenge the acquittal, through an appeal. Indeed, the right not only extends to challenging the order of acquittal but also challenging the conviction of the accused for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation. The language of the proviso is quite explicit, and nuances that do not exist in the provisos should not be read. [Para 74][35-B-D]
1.3 The proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. must also be given a meaning that is realistic, liberal, progressive and beneficial to the victim of an offence. There is a historical reason for this, beginning with the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations in the 96th Plenary Session on 29th November, 1985. The Declaration is sometimes referred to as the Magna Carta of the rights of victims. One of the significant declarations made was in relation to access to justice for the victim of an offence through the justice delivery mechanisms, both formal and informal. Putting the Declaration to practice, it is quite obvious that the victim of an offence is entitled to a variety of rights. Access to mechanisms of justice and redress through formal procedures as provided for in national legislation, must include the right to file an appeal against an order of acquittal in a case such as the instant one. Considered in this light, the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. must be given life, to benefit the victim of an offence. Under the circumstances, on the basis of the plain language of the law and also as interpreted by several High Courts and the resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations, it is quite clear that a victim as defined in Section 2(wa) Cr.P.C. would be entitled to file an appeal before the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction. It must follow that the appeal filed by the appellant before the High Court was maintainable and ought to have been considered on its own merits. [Para 75-77][35-E-F; 36-G-H; 37-A-B]
1.5 The language of the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. is quite clear, particularly when it is contrasted with the language of Section 378(4). The text of this provision is quite clear and it is confined to an order of acquittal passed in a case instituted upon a complaint. The word ‘complaint’ has been defined in Section 2(d) and refers to any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate. This has nothing to do with the lodging or the registration of an FIR, and therefore it is not at all necessary to consider the effect of a victim being the complainant as far as the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. is concerned. [Para 78][37-C-D]
1.6 The judgment and orders passed by the High Court are set aside and the matters are remitted back to the High Court to hear and decide the appeal. [Para 79][37-E]
National Commission for Women v. State of Delhi and anr (2010) 12 SCC 599 : [2010] 10 SCR 905; Satya Pal Singh v. State of MP & Ors. (2015) 15 SCC 613 – distinguished.
Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014)
2 SCC 1 : [2013] 14 SCR 713; Girish Kumar Suneja v. Central Board of Investigation (2017) 14 SCC 809; Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh AIR 1988 SC 2127 : [1988] 2 Suppl. SCR 571; Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra
Chakroborty AIR 1996 SC 922 : [1995] 6 Suppl. SCR 731; Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 6 SCC 770 : [2013] 8 SCR 863; Sampurna Behura v. Union of India (2018) 4 SCC 433; Sakshi v. Union of India (2004) 5 SCC 518 : [2004] 2 Suppl. SCR 723; Bhavuben Dineshbhai Makwana v. State of Gujarat MANU/GJ/1137/2012; Mahafuja Banu v. Md. Asadul Islam & State. (2013) 1 Cal LT 109; Gouranga Debnaih v. State of Tripura 2011 (4) GLT 379; T. Balakrishnan Master v. K.M. Ramachandran Master Crl. M.A. No. 7423 of 2011; Tata Steel v. Atma Tube Products Ltd. (2014) 173 (1) PLR 1; Smt. Ram Kaur @ Jaswinder Kaur v. Jagbir Singh alias Jabi and others MANU/PH/4500/2010; Guru Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar Crl Appeal No. 582 of 2011; Ram Phal v. State & Ors. 2015 (151) DRJ 562; Parmeshwar Mandal v. State of Bihar 2014 (1) PLJR 377; Baldev Sharma v. Gopal & Ors 2017 (3) RLW 2604 (Raj.); Vanaja K.C. v. State of Kerala & Ors. ILR 2016 (2) Kerala 713;
D. Sudhakar v. Panapu Sreenivasulu @ Evone Water Sreenivasulu and Ors. MANU/AP/1172/2012; John v. Shibu Cherian MANU/KE/1839/2011; Bhisam Prasad Bareth v. Dinesh Mahant & Ors. MANU/CG/0079/2012 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.