Date of the Judgment: 5 July 2019
Citation: Crl.Appeal No.979/2019
Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph
Can a victim appeal an acquittal order even if the State’s appeal is dismissed? The Supreme Court addressed this crucial question regarding the rights of victims in criminal cases. This judgment clarifies that a victim’s right to appeal an acquittal is independent of the State’s right to appeal, ensuring victims have a separate avenue for seeking justice. The bench comprised of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.M. Joseph.
Case Background
The case originated from Sessions Trial No. 80 of 2014, where the accused, Brindavan and others, were tried for offences under Section 452 (house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint) and Section 302 (punishment for murder) read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The trial court acquitted the accused on 19 December 2016.
Aggrieved by the acquittal, the State of Uttar Pradesh filed a Government Appeal No. 1947 of 2017 seeking leave to appeal. This leave was declined on 18 April 2017. Subsequently, the victim, the real brother of the deceased, also filed an appeal. However, the High Court dismissed the victim’s appeal on 23 November 2017, citing the dismissal of the State’s appeal. The victim then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2014 | Criminal case No. 53 of 2014 filed against Brindavan & Ors. under Sections 452, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. |
| 19 December 2016 | Trial Court acquits the accused. |
| 18 April 2017 | High Court declines leave to appeal to the State in Government Appeal No. 1947 of 2017. |
| 23 November 2017 | High Court dismisses the victim’s appeal. |
| 5 July 2019 | Supreme Court sets aside the High Court order and remits the appeal. |
Course of Proceedings
The trial court acquitted the accused on 19 December 2016. The State, dissatisfied with the acquittal, sought leave to appeal, which was rejected by the High Court on 18 April 2017. Subsequently, the victim filed an appeal against the acquittal. The High Court dismissed the victim’s appeal on 23 November 2017, reasoning that since the State’s appeal was dismissed, the victim’s appeal could not be entertained. This dismissal prompted the victim to approach the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court referenced Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”), which was amended by Act 5 of 2009, effective from 31 December 2009. The relevant proviso states:
“Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court.”
Section 2(wa) of the CrPC defines a “victim” as:
“victim” means a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and the expression “victim” includes his or her guardian or legal heir.
The Court noted that the victim, being the deceased’s brother, qualifies as a legal heir under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC.
Arguments
The counsel for the State argued that the 2009 amendment to Section 372 of the CrPC has enlarged the rights of victims, granting them an independent right to appeal against acquittal. The counsel emphasized that this right is distinct from the State’s right to appeal, which requires leave from the High Court.
The appellant’s counsel supported this argument, asserting that the victim’s appeal should not have been dismissed simply because the State’s appeal was rejected. They relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Mallikarjun Kodagalli (d) through legal representatives Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. [2019(2) SCC 752] which clarified that a victim does not need to seek leave to appeal against an acquittal under Section 372 of the CrPC.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Victim’s Right to Appeal |
✓ The 2009 amendment to Section 372 of the CrPC grants victims an independent right to appeal against acquittal. ✓ This right is distinct from the State’s right to appeal, which requires leave from the High Court. |
State and Appellant |
| No Requirement for Leave |
✓ The victim does not need to seek leave to appeal against an acquittal under Section 372 of the CrPC. ✓ The victim’s appeal should not be dismissed because the State’s appeal was rejected. |
Appellant |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether a victim’s right to appeal an acquittal under Section 372 of the CrPC is contingent upon the State’s appeal being admitted.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether a victim’s right to appeal an acquittal under Section 372 of the CrPC is contingent upon the State’s appeal being admitted. | The Court held that a victim’s right to appeal is independent of the State’s appeal. The victim does not need to seek leave to appeal and the appeal should be treated as a regular appeal. |
Authorities
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mallikarjun Kodagalli (d) through legal representatives Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. [2019(2) SCC 752] | Supreme Court of India | Relied upon | Clarified that a victim does not need to apply for leave to appeal against an order of acquittal while preferring an appeal under Section 372 proviso to CrPC. |
| Section 372, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Parliament of India | Interpreted | The proviso to this section grants a victim the right to appeal against an order of acquittal, conviction for a lesser offense, or inadequate compensation. |
| Section 2(wa), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 | Parliament of India | Interpreted | Defines “victim” to include a person who has suffered loss or injury, as well as their guardian or legal heir. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Victim’s right to appeal is contingent on the State’s appeal being admitted. | Rejected. The Court held that the victim’s right to appeal is independent and not contingent on the State’s appeal. |
| Victim needs to seek leave to appeal | Rejected. The Court reiterated that the victim does not need to seek leave to appeal against an acquittal. |
The Supreme Court relied on Mallikarjun Kodagalli (d) through legal representatives Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. [2019(2) SCC 752]* which established that a victim’s right to appeal under Section 372 of the CrPC is independent of the State’s right and does not require leave to appeal. The Court emphasized that the High Court erred in dismissing the victim’s appeal solely on the ground that the State’s appeal was not granted leave.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to uphold the statutory rights of victims as enshrined in Section 372 of the CrPC. The Court emphasized the independent nature of a victim’s right to appeal and the legislative intent behind the 2009 amendment, which aimed to empower victims in the criminal justice system. The Court’s reasoning was also driven by the principle that a victim’s right to seek justice should not be curtailed by procedural hurdles or the outcome of the State’s appeal.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Upholding Victims’ Rights | 40% |
| Legislative Intent of Section 372 CrPC | 30% |
| Independent nature of victim’s right to appeal | 30% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Logical Reasoning
Trial Court Acquits Accused
State Seeks Leave to Appeal
High Court Denies Leave to State
Victim Files Appeal
High Court Dismisses Victim’s Appeal Citing Dismissal of State’s Appeal
Supreme Court: Victim’s Right to Appeal is Independent
The Court stated, “the extracted portion of the impugned order shows that the only reason recorded for dismissing the appeal of the victim (in fact styled as leave to appeal) was on the ground that leave had not been granted to the Government to file the appeal.”
The Court further noted, “the legal position enunciated in Mallikarjun Kodagalli (d) through legal representatives (supra) would show that the appellant had a right to file the appeal and infact no leave has to be sought in such a situation.”
The Court concluded, “Thus, the appeal has to be dealt as a regular appeal.”
Key Takeaways
- A victim has an independent right to appeal against an acquittal under Section 372 of the CrPC.
- A victim does not need to seek leave to appeal against an acquittal.
- The dismissal of the State’s appeal does not affect the victim’s right to appeal.
- The High Court must consider the victim’s appeal on its merits.
Directions
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and remitted the appeal back to the High Court for consideration on its merits.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a victim’s right to appeal against an acquittal is independent of the State’s right to appeal and does not require prior leave from the High Court. This judgment clarifies the scope of Section 372 of the CrPC and strengthens the rights of victims in the criminal justice system. This case reaffirms the position of law laid down in Mallikarjun Kodagalli (d) through legal representatives Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. [2019(2) SCC 752].
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case reinforces the independent right of victims to appeal against acquittal orders. By clarifying that a victim’s appeal is not contingent on the State’s appeal, the Court has ensured a more robust and accessible avenue for victims to seek justice. This decision underscores the importance of the 2009 amendment to Section 372 of the CrPC, which aimed to empower victims within the criminal justice framework.