Madhya Pradesh High Court
Padma Nabh Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 March, 2018
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No.3175/2018
(Padmanabh Sharma & Another Vs. State of M.P. &
Others )
Gwalior, dated :13.03.2018
Shri R.K. Shrivastava, Advocate with Shri Ram Milan
Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Kamal Jain, Public Prosecutor for the
respondent/State.
Shri D.S. Kushwah, Advocate for the respondent no.2 to
10. In terms of the order passed by this Court on 06.03.2018 where this Court had granted liberty to file appeal under the proviso of Sec 372 Cr.P.C. to the victim only against the acquittal of respondents no.11 and 12, learned counsel for remaining respondents no. 2 to 10 submits that the present M.Cr.C. is for enhancement of sentence awarded to the said respondents from the awarded 3 years R.I. to life sentence u/S 377 IPC.
A plain reading of proviso to Sec 372 Cr.P.C. reflects that by the said proviso which was introduced in Code of Criminal Procedure w.e.f. 31.12.2009, conferred right to victim to file appeal in respect of the following causes;
1. Against acquittal of accused;
2. against conviction of accused for a lesser offence,
3. and imposing inadequate compensation. For ready reference and convenience, the said provision of Section 372 Cr.P.C. is reproduced below:
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 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.3175/2018 (Padmanabh Sharma & Another Vs. State of M.P. & Others ) the time being in force:1[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].
In view of the above, it is evident that apart from the said limited causes available to the victim, there can be no occasion to prefer an appeal under proviso to Sec 372 Cr.P.C. on any other cause, as the same is expressly prohibited by the terminology employed by the non-obstinate clause with which the text of Section 372 Cr.P.C. begins.
The victim herein is aggrieved by the inadequate sentence awarded to respondents no. 2 to 10 herein by the trial Court u/S 377 IPC. This cause of inadequate sentence is not available to a victim for filing an appeal u/S 377 Cr.P.C.
The present miscellaneous criminal case has been filed u/S 378(4) Cr.P.C. which provision is further not attracted, as the same relates to appeals against acquittal and in the present case, the respondent 2 to 10 have not been acquitted, but have been imposed with sentence of 3 years R.I. u/S 377 IPC, which according to the victim is inadequate.
Chapter XXIX of Cr.P.C. which relates to appeals confers exclusive right to the State alone to file appeal against inadequacy of sentence but not to any other stakeholder in the criminal dispensation system.
Accordingly, it is clear that the petitioners herein who are 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.3175/2018 (Padmanabh Sharma & Another Vs. State of M.P. & Others ) victims are not vested with any right to file an appeal u/S 372 Cr.P.C. against inadequate sentence imposed against respondents no. 2 to 10.
Remedy of revision u/S 397 Cr.P.C. is always available to the victim for the said purpose.
Accordingly, the present miscellaneous criminal case is dismissed with the above said liberty to the victim.
(Sheel Nagu) (S.A. Dharmadhikari)
Judge Judge
sh/-
Digitally signed by SEHAR
HASEEN
Date: 2018.03.16 10:13:25 +05'30'