Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

56. In Parmeshwar Mandal an appeal was filed by a victim in the High Court against a judgment and order of acquittal dated 28 th August, 2012. The Division Bench of the High Court sought assistance on the maintainability of the appeal. After hearing arguments, the Court noted the distinction in the language of Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. and the language of Sections 377 and 378 of the Cr.P.C. The High Court noted that Section 372 of the Cr.P.C. was framed in affirmative terms. Moreover, the use of the word ‘shall’ in the proviso to Section 372 of the Cr.P.C., in contradistinction to the use of the word ‘may’ in Sections 377 and 378 of the Cr.P.C. gives a clear indication that the right of a victim to file an appeal was placed on a higher pedestal than the rights of the State, or even the accused. This is what the High Court had to say in this regard:

5. My   only   difference   of   opinion   is   with   regard   to   the conclusion drawn in the judgment of my learned brother that the victim, even in appeal filed in the High Court, is not required to seek leave of the High Court.  In my considered view, this matter is, in fact, no longer res integra.  This Court has specifically dealt with   this   issue   in  Satya   Pal   Singh   v.   State   of   M.P.   and Others23, wherein it held as follows:

“10. The Full Bench of the High Court of Delhi in  Ram Phal v. State, 2015 SCC Online Del 9802, after examining the   relevant   provisions   under   Section   2(wa)   and   the proviso   to   Section   372   CrPC,   in   the   light   of   their legislative   history   has   held   that   the   right   to   prefer   an appeal conferred upon the victim or relatives of the victim by virtue of the proviso to Section 372 is an independent statutory   right.   Therefore,   it   has   held   that   there   is   no need for the victim in terms of definition under Section 2(wa)   CrPC   to   seek   the   leave   of   the   High   Court   as required   under   sub­section   (3)   of   Section   378   CrPC   to prefer an appeal under the proviso to Section 372 CrPC. The said view of the High Court is not legally correct for 23 (2015) 15 SCC 613 Crl. Appeal Nos._______/2018 (@ S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 7040-7041 of 2014) the reason that the substantive provision of Section 372 CrPC clearly provides that no appeal shall lie from any judgment   and   order   of   a   criminal   court   except   as provided for by CrPC. Further, sub­section (3) of Section 378   CrPC   provides   that   for   preferring   an   appeal   to   the High Court against an order of acquittal it is necessary to obtain its leave.

The   High   Court   of   M.P.   has   failed   to   deal   with   this important   legal   aspect   of   the   matter   while   passing   the impugned judgment and order.”

6. The only issue with which I am dealing is whether a victim while   filing   an   appeal   under   Section   372   of   CrPC   in   the   High Court against the acquittal of an accused is required to obtain leave   of   the   court   under   Section   378(3)   CrPC.     Prior   to   the amendment of Section 372 of CrPC the victim had no right to file Crl. Appeal Nos._______/2018 (@ S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 7040-7041 of 2014) an appeal.   The traditional view has always been that the State represents the victim of the crime.  Criminal offences have always been treated to be offences against the State and it is the State alone which investigated and prosecuted such cases.  In case the State   machinery   does   not   take   action   on   the   complaint   of   the victim, the said victim has a right under Section 156 of CrPC to approach the court.   Under Section 156(3) CrPC, the magistrate may order an investigation to be done by the police.   Once the investigation is done, then again the victim has no hand in the investigation except to assist the investigating officer and to bring evidence   to   the   notice   of   the   investigating   officer.     After investigation,   the   investigating   officer   files   a   final   report   under Section   173   CrPC.     The   investigating   officer   may   come   to   the conclusion that either no offence is made out or may file report showing   what   offences   are   made   out   in   which   case   the   court proceeds   further.     Even   in   those   cases   where   the  investigating agency  files  a report  that no criminal offence is made out, the victim has a right to object to the report and he can argue before the court that a case is made out on the basis of the evidence Crl. Appeal Nos._______/2018 (@ S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 7040-7041 of 2014) collected or he can even urge that the police must be directed to carry out further and more investigation.  

11. As pointed out above, even a complainant when he files an appeal against an order of acquittal in a case instituted upon a complaint is required to obtain special leave to appeal. It is true that the proviso to Section 372 of CrPC does not indicate that a victim while filing an appeal in the High Court must file a petition for leave to appeal before his appeal can be entertained. 

12. I   am   of   the   considered   view   that   though   the   proviso   to Section   372   of   CrPC   does   give   a   right   to   the   victim   to   file   an appeal, this proviso cannot be read in isolation. It has to be given Crl. Appeal Nos._______/2018 (@ S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 7040-7041 of 2014) a   meaning   which   fulfills   the   intention   of   the   Legislature.   The proviso to Section 372 of CrPC does not lay down the procedure as to how, in what manner, and within which time the appeal has to be filed. An appeal, being a creature of the statute, it is also necessary to prescribe the limitation and procedure for filing the appeal.