Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered an appeal by Naval Kishore Mishra, the brother of a deceased victim, against the High Court's dismissal of his appeal challenging the acquittal of the accused in a murder case. The accused were tried under Sections 452, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial No.80 of 2014 and acquitted by the trial court on 19.12.2016. The State sought leave to appeal under Section 378 CrPC, which was declined on 18.04.2017. Subsequently, the victim filed an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, but the High Court dismissed it on 23.11.2017, reasoning that since the State's leave was refused, it would be incongruous to allow the victim's appeal. The Supreme Court examined the legal provisions: Section 372 proviso, inserted by Amendment Act 5 of 2009, grants the victim a right to appeal against acquittal, conviction for a lesser offence, or inadequate compensation. Section 2(wa) defines 'victim' to include the legal heir. The Court noted that the appellant, as the real brother, is a legal heir and thus a victim. Relying on Mallikarjun Kodagalli (d) through legal representatives v. State of Karnataka & Ors., (2019) 2 SCC 752, the Court held that a victim need not seek leave to appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC, unlike the State under Section 378 CrPC. The High Court's dismissal solely on the ground of refusal of leave to the State was erroneous. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and remitted the appeal for consideration on merits.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Victim's Right to Appeal - Section 372 proviso, Section 2(wa) CrPC - The victim has a substantive right to appeal against an order of acquittal without seeking leave, as per the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. The High Court erred in dismissing the victim's appeal solely on the ground that the State's leave to appeal was refused, as the victim's right is independent and does not require leave. (Paras 7-14) B) Criminal Procedure - Definition of Victim - Section 2(wa) CrPC - The term 'victim' includes the legal heir of the deceased. In this case, the appellant, being the real brother of the deceased, falls within the definition of 'victim' and is entitled to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. (Para 9) C) Criminal Procedure - Appeal Against Acquittal - Distinction Between State and Victim - Sections 372, 378 CrPC - The State's appeal under Section 378 CrPC requires leave, but the victim's appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC does not require leave. The High Court's dismissal of the victim's appeal based on the refusal of leave to the State was erroneous. (Paras 10-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a victim's appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 requires leave to appeal, and whether the High Court erred in dismissing the victim's appeal solely because the State's leave to appeal was refused.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order dated 23.11.2017 and allowed the appeal, remitting the matter to the High Court for consideration on merits. Leave granted.
Law Points
- Right of victim to appeal against acquittal without seeking leave
- Distinction between State's appeal requiring leave and victim's appeal under proviso to Section 372 CrPC
- Victim includes legal heir under Section 2(wa) CrPC
