Victim’s Right to Appeal: Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Section 372 CrPC in Acquittal Cases (2018)

Date of the Judgment: 12 October 2018
Citation: (2018) INSC 928
Judges: Madan B. Lokur, J. and S. Abdul Nazeer, J. (Majority Opinion by Madan B. Lokur, J.) and Deepak Gupta, J. (Concurring Opinion)
Can victims of crime challenge acquittal orders? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question, clarifying the rights of victims under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). This judgment highlights the evolving jurisprudence around victim rights and their place in the criminal justice system. The core issue was whether a victim has a right to appeal against an acquittal and if so, whether they need to seek leave to appeal from the High Court.

Case Background

The case revolves around an attack on the appellant, Kodagali, on the night of 6th February 2009. Following the incident, Kodagali filed a First Information Report (FIR) with the police. Subsequent investigations led to proceedings against the accused before the District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, acquitted the accused on 28th October 2013. Aggrieved by this decision, Kodagali filed an appeal in the High Court under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, which was dismissed as not maintainable. The High Court held that since the incident occurred before 31st December 2009, the date when the proviso to Section 372 came into effect, the appeal was not maintainable. Kodagali then filed another appeal under Section 378(4) of the CrPC, which was also dismissed on the grounds that the case was not instituted upon a complaint before a Magistrate. Kodagali then approached the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, acquitted the accused on 28th October 2013. Kodagali initially appealed to the High Court under the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, which was dismissed on the ground that the incident occurred before the amendment came into force. Subsequently, Kodagali filed another appeal under Section 378(4) of the CrPC, which was also dismissed because the case was not instituted upon a complaint before a Magistrate. These dismissals led Kodagali to approach the Supreme Court, arguing that he was left without a remedy against the acquittal of the accused.

Legal Framework

The core legal provision in this case is Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The relevant part of the provision states:

“372. No appeal to lie unless otherwise provided. – No appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force: 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.”

This proviso, added in 2009, grants a victim the right to appeal against an acquittal, conviction for a lesser offense, or inadequate compensation. This provision is significant as it expands the rights of victims in the criminal justice system. The Supreme Court also considered Section 378 of the CrPC, which deals with appeals against acquittal by the State and complainants in complaint cases. The Court’s analysis also touched upon the broader constitutional principles of access to justice and the rights of victims.

Arguments

Appellant (Kodagali):

• Kodagali argued that he was left without any remedy against the acquittal of the accused.
• He contended that the High Court erred in dismissing his appeal based on the date of the incident rather than the date of the acquittal order.
• He submitted that the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC grants him an independent right to appeal, irrespective of when the crime occurred, as long as the acquittal order is after 31st December 2009.

Respondents (State of Karnataka & Ors.):

• The State argued that the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC should not be given retrospective effect.
• They relied on the High Court’s decision, which stated that since the incident occurred before 31st December 2009, the appeal was not maintainable.
• They contended that the right to appeal is a substantive right and should not be easily recognized unless specifically conferred by statute with retrospective effect.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellant’s argument that the date of the acquittal order, rather than the date of the incident, should determine the applicability of the right to appeal under Section 372 of the CrPC was a novel approach.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether a ‘victim’ as defined in the CrPC has a right of appeal in view of the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC against an order of acquittal in a case where the alleged offence took place prior to 31st December 2009 but the order of acquittal was passed by the Trial Court after 31st December 2009?
2. Whether the ‘victim’ must apply for leave to appeal against the order of acquittal?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered various authorities in reaching its decision:

Cases:

• Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1 – Supreme Court: Discussed the difficulties in registering an FIR.
• Girish Kumar Suneja v. Central Board of Investigation, (2017) 14 SCC 809 – Supreme Court: Highlighted the need for balancing the rights of the accused and the victim.
• Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh, AIR 1988 SC 2127 – Supreme Court: Addressed the issue of monetary compensation to victims.
• Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakroborty, AIR 1996 SC 922 – Supreme Court: Addressed the issue of monetary compensation to victims.
• Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 6 SCC 770 – Supreme Court: Addressed the issue of monetary compensation to victims.
• Sampurna Behura v. Union of India, (2018) 4 SCC 433 – Supreme Court: Discussed the need for child-friendly courts.
• Sakshi v. Union of India, (2004) 5 SCC 518 – Supreme Court: Issued directions for in-camera proceedings and protection of victims in sexual offense cases.
• National Commission for Women v. State of Delhi, (2010) 12 SCC 599 – Supreme Court: Discussed the right of the victim to file an appeal, but was distinguished by the Court in this case.
• Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhry, 1957 SCR 488 – Supreme Court: Established that the right to appeal is a substantive right.
• Satya Pal Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2015) 15 SCC 613 – Supreme Court: Held that a victim needs to obtain leave of the High Court to appeal against an order of acquittal.
• Bhavuben Dineshbhai Makwana v. State of Gujarat, MANU/GJ/1137/2012 – Gujarat High Court: Discussed the independent right of a victim to appeal.
• Mahafuja Banu v. Md. Asadul Islam & State, (2013) 1 Cal LT 109 – Calcutta High Court: Held that the right to appeal accrues on the date of the judgment.
• Gouranga Debnaih v. State of Tripura, 2011 (4) GLT 379 – Gauhati High Court: Held that the right to appeal accrues on the date of the judgment.
• T. Balakrishnan Master v. K.M. Ramachandran Master, MANU/KE/1620/2011 – Kerala High Court: Held that the right to appeal is dependent on the judgment rendered by the Court.
• Tata Steel v. Atma Tube Products Ltd., (2014) 173 (1) PLR 1 – Punjab and Haryana High Court: Held that the right to appeal is prospective and enforceable from 31st December 2009.
• Ram Phal v. State & Ors., 2015 (151) DRJ 562 – Delhi High Court: Held that the right to appeal is available irrespective of the date of the offense.
• Parmeshwar Mandal v. State of Bihar, 2014 (1) PLJR 377 – Patna High Court: Held that the right to appeal is available for judgments passed after 31st December 2009.
• Baldev Sharma v. Gopal & Ors, 2017 (3) RLW 2604 (Raj.) – Rajasthan High Court: Held that the right to appeal is available for judgments passed after 31st December 2009.
• Vanaja K.C. v. State of Kerala & Ors., ILR 2016 (2) Kerala 713 – Kerala High Court: Held that the right to appeal is dependent on the judgment rendered by the Court.
• D. Sudhakar v. Panapu Sreenivasulu, MANU/AP/1172/2012 – Andhra Pradesh High Court: Held that the victim cannot file an appeal if the incident occurred before 31st December 2009.
• Bhisam Prasad Bareth v. Dinesh Mahant & Ors., MANU/CG/0079/2012 – Chhattisgarh High Court: Held that the victim cannot file an appeal if the incident occurred before 31st December 2009.
• John v. Shibu Cherian, MANU/KE/1839/2011 – Kerala High Court: Held that the victim cannot file an appeal if the incident occurred before 31st December 2009.
• Rajesh Sharma v. State of U.P., 2017 SCC Online SC 821 – Supreme Court: Noted the misuse of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
• Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 6 SCC 454 – Supreme Court: Noted the misuse of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Statutes:

• Section 372, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): The main provision under consideration, which grants the victim a right to appeal.
• Section 378, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Deals with appeals against acquittal.
• Section 2(wa), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Defines “victim”.
• Section 156, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Empowers a magistrate to order police investigation.
• Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Deals with police report after investigation.
• Section 301(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Restricts the role of private lawyers in criminal trials.
• Article 114, Limitation Act, 1963: Deals with limitation for appeals.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court distinguished the decision in National Commission for Women v. State of Delhi [(2010) 12 SCC 599]*, stating that it was not applicable to the present case.
• The Supreme Court followed the reasoning of the Full Bench decisions of various High Courts including Bhavuben Dineshbhai Makwana v. State of Gujarat [MANU/GJ/1137/2012]*, Mahafuja Banu v. Md. Asadul Islam & State [(2013) 1 Cal LT 109]*, Tata Steel v. Atma Tube Products Ltd. [(2014) 173 (1) PLR 1]*, Ram Phal v. State & Ors. [2015 (151) DRJ 562]*, Parmeshwar Mandal v. State of Bihar [2014 (1) PLJR 377]*, and Baldev Sharma v. Gopal & Ors [2017 (3) RLW 2604 (Raj.)]* which held that the date of the judgment is the relevant date for determining the applicability of the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC.
• The Supreme Court overruled the view taken in Satya Pal Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2015) 15 SCC 613]* to the extent that it held that the victim must obtain leave of the High Court to appeal against an order of acquittal.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized the need to give a realistic, liberal, progressive, and beneficial interpretation to the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, keeping in mind the rights of victims of crime. The Court noted the evolving jurisprudence on victim rights and the need to provide access to justice. The Court also considered the Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations, which emphasizes the rights of victims to access justice.

Fact:Law Ratio: The court’s decision was influenced more by legal considerations (70%) than by the factual aspects of the case (30%).

Final Order

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that:

• A victim has a right to appeal against an order of acquittal if the acquittal order is passed after 31st December 2009, irrespective of when the offence was committed.
• A victim is not required to seek leave to appeal against an order of acquittal (Majority Opinion).
• The matter was remitted to the High Court for a decision on the merits of the appeal filed by the victim.

Impact and Implications

This judgment has significant implications for the rights of victims in the criminal justice system. By clarifying that the date of the acquittal order is the relevant date for determining the applicability of the proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, the Supreme Court has expanded the scope of victims’ right to appeal. The judgment has also clarified that a victim does not need to seek leave to appeal, making the process more accessible and less cumbersome. This decision reinforces the principle that victims have a vital role in the criminal justice system and their rights must be protected. It also aligns with the evolving jurisprudence on victim rights, which seeks to ensure that victims have a meaningful opportunity to seek justice.

Impact on the Legal System:

• The judgment has clarified the interpretation of Section 372 of the CrPC, providing certainty to the legal community.
• It has streamlined the process for victims to appeal against acquittal orders, reducing the burden on victims.
• It has reinforced the importance of victim rights in the criminal justice system.

Impact on Future Cases:

• This judgment will serve as a precedent for future cases involving victims’ right to appeal against acquittal orders.
• It will guide High Courts in interpreting Section 372 of the CrPC.
• It will encourage the judiciary to adopt a more liberal and progressive approach to victim rights.

Future Challenges:

• The concurring opinion of Deepak Gupta, J., which states that leave to appeal is required, may lead to further litigation and differing interpretations in future cases.
• There may be challenges in implementing this judgment at the ground level, particularly in ensuring that victims are aware of their rights and have access to legal assistance.
• The need to balance the rights of the accused and the victim will continue to be a challenge for the judiciary.