WWW.LIVELAW.
IN
1
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No. 690 of 2017
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.7014 of 2012)
Roopendra Singh ….Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura & Anr. …. Respondents
WITH
Criminal Appeal Nos. 691-692 of 2017
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.8316-8317/2012
JUDGMENT
Uday Umesh Lalit, J.
1. Leave granted in both the matters.
I Criminal Appeal @ out of SLP (Crl.) No.7014 of 2012)
2. The appellant was tried in Sessions Trial No.22 (WT/K) 2010 in the
Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Khowai, West Tripura for having
Page 1
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
2
committed offences punishable under Sections 342, 376(2)(b) and 506 IPC
and was acquitted of all the charges leveled against him vide judgment of the
Trial Court dated 28.04.2011. Respondent No.2, i.e. the victim challenged
the acquittal by filing Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2011 in the Gauhati High
Court, Agartala Bench. This appeal was filed under Section 372 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’ for short). When the appeal was listed
for admission, an objection was taken that unless “leave” was granted under
Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C., the appeal could not be admitted. At this juncture,
a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was filed by Respondent No.2 for
treating said criminal appeal under Section 372 read with Section 378
Cr.P.C.
3. The matter was contested. The High Court by its judgment and order
dated 06.06.2012 concluded that there was an unfettered right conferred
upon the victim by Section 372 Cr. P.C. and that no leave was required for
the victim to file such appeal. Consequently, the High Court observed that
there was no necessity for converting the appeal to one under Section 372
read with 378 Cr.P.C. The following observations are noteworthy:-
“The proviso to Section 372 has created a right to appeal
unfettered of any leave or sanction and it shall automatically lie
to the forum where an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of
conviction of such court if the said appeal against the judgment
Page 2
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
3
and order of acquittal is filed by the victim as defined in
Section 2 (wa) of Cr.P.C.
For the reasons as stated above, this court is of the view
that even though the right to appeal for the victim has been
created by the proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C, the said proviso
itself is a comprehensive provision, not fettered by any leave or
sanction as required for the categories of appeals as depicted in
Section 378(1), 378(2) and 378(4) of Cr.P.C. No leave is
required for the victim to file an appeal as against the order of
acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C.”
4. The correctness of the decision of the High Court is questioned by the
appellant-accused. By order dated 13.08.2014, Mr. Shekhar Naphade,
learned Senior Advocate was requested to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae
and the matter was directed to be listed for final hearing. In the meantime a
decision was rendered by this Court on 06.10.2015 in Satya Pal Singh v.
State of Madhya Pradesh1. Paras 14, 15, 17 and 18 of the decision are as
under:-
”14. Thus, from a reading of the above said legal position laid
down by this Court in the cases referred to supra, it is
abundantly clear that the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. must be
read along with its main enactment i.e. Section 372 itself and
together with sub-section (3) of Section 378 Cr.P.C. otherwise
the substantive provision of Section 372 Cr.P.C. will be
rendered nugatory, as it clearly states that no appeal shall lie
from any judgment or order of a criminal court except as
provided by Cr.P.C.
15. Thus, to conclude on the legal issue:
1
2015 (15) SCC 613
Page 3
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
4
“whether the appellant herein, being the father of the deceased,
has statutory right to prefer an appeal to the High Court against
the order of acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C.
without obtaining the leave of the High Court as required under
sub-section (3) of Section 378 Cr.P.C.?”
this Court is of the view that the right of questioning the
correctness of the judgment and order of acquittal by preferring
an appeal to the High Court is conferred upon the victim
including the legal heir and others, as defined under Section
2(wa) Cr.P.C., under the proviso to Section 372, but only after
obtaining the leave of the High Court as required under
sub-section (3) of Section 378 Cr.P.C. 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.
17. Hence, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court
is not sustainable in law and the same is liable to be set aside by
this Court and the case is required to be remanded to the High
Court to consider for grant of leave to file an appeal by the
appellant as required under sub-section (3) of Section 378
Cr.P.C. and thereafter proceed in the matter.
18. For the reasons stated supra, this appeal is allowed by
setting aside the impugned judgment and order of the High
Court. The case is remanded to the High Court to hear the
appellant with regard to grant of leave to file an appeal as the
appellant is legal heir of the victim as defined under Section
2(wa) Cr.P.C. and dispose of the appeal in accordance with law
in the light of observations made in this order as expeditiously
as possible.
5. The decision in Satya Pal Singh shows that reliance was placed on a
Full Bench decision of High Court of Delhi in Ram Phal v. State and
Page 4
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
5
others2, according to which the right to prefer an appeal conferred upon a
victim by virtue of proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. is an independent statutory
right and there is no need for the victim to seek leave of the High Court. Said
decision of the Full Bench of the High Court of Delhi was not found to be
legally correct by this Court in Satya Pal Singh.
6. When this matter came up for final hearing, the learned Amicus
Curiae submitted that the decision of this Court in Satya Pal Singh required
reconsideration. It was submitted that proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. is an
independent provision conferring a substantive right on the victim to prefer
an appeal against the judgment of acquittal, conviction for lesser offence or
inadequate compensation. It was further submitted that appeals under
Sections 373, 374, 377, 379 and 380 in Chapter XXIX of Cr.P.C. constitute
one category of appeals which can be presented without obtaining leave of
the appellate court while appeals under Section 378 whether by the State
Government, Central Government or by the Complainant against the order
of acquittal constitute another category of appeals which are circumscribed
by the requirement of obtaining leave of the High Court. In his submission,
the appeal under proviso to Section 372 falls in the first category of appeals
and as rightly observed by the High Court of Gauhati in the present case, no
2
2015 SCC Online Delhi 9802=2015 221 DLT 1
Page 5
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
6
leave of the High Court was required. The learned Amicus Curiae then
traced the legislative history and submitted that in the 1898 Code of
Criminal Procedure as originally enacted no right was conferred on the
Complainant to file an appeal against acquittal, which for the first time was
introduced in Section 417 of the 1898 Code in the year 1955. He further
submitted that though the Law Commission in its 41 st Report had rejected
the suggestion of permitting the victim to file appeals against order of
acquittal, in its 154th Report the Law Commission had relied on the 1985
Union Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for victims of
crimes and abuse of power. The Report of the Law Commission noted that
the victims were the worst sufferers in the crime and needed to be given
certain rights and compensation. The learned Amicus Curiae then stated that
these developments led to the constitution of Malimath Committee which
recommended that the victims should have the right to file appeal against
acquittal and that is how the proviso to Section 372 came to be inserted by
Amendment Act of 2008. He laid emphasis on following portion from the
Objects and Reasons which weighed with the Parliament while inserting the
proviso:-
“At present, the victims are the worst sufferers in a crime
and they do not have much role in the court proceedings. They
Page 6
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
7
need to be given certain rights and compensation, so that there
is no distortion of the criminal justice system.”
He submitted that the Statement of Objects and Reasons clearly
stressed that the administration of Criminal Law has tendency to distort and
therefore the victims are the worst sufferers and as such the Parliament had
given an unrestricted right to the victim to prefer appeal against acquittal.
7. In his written submissions the learned Amicus Curiae sought to bring
out the anomalies in the decision of this Court in Satya Pal Singh in
following terms:-
“(1) This Hon’ble Court in Satya Pal Singh’s case has missed
out the significance of the word “conviction” used in the
proviso to S. 372 Cr. P.C. Under the code, against a conviction,
an appeal does not necessarily lie to the High Court. Section
374 lays down different foras for preferring an appeal against
conviction.
i If a person is convicted in a trial held by the High Court
in its extraordinary original criminal Jurisdiction, an appeal lies
to the Supreme Court.
ii Any person convicted by the Sessions Judge or the
Assistant Sessions Judge, an appeal lies to the High Court.
iii If a person is convicted by any Court in which the
sentence of Imprisonment for more than 7 years is passed he
may appeal to the High Court.
iv Any person convicted in a trial held in the Court of a
Metropolitan Magistrate or Assistant Sessions Judge or
Page 7
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
8
Magistrate of the first class or second class, his appeal will lie
to the Court of Sessions.
v If any person is sentence by the aforesaid Judicial
authorities i.e. Metropolitan Magistrate, Assistant Judge,
Sessions Judge and sentenced under Section 325, an appeal lies
to the Court of Sessions.
vi Any person convicted and sentenced by the Magistrate
u/S 360 an appeal lies to the Court of Sessions.
(2) The Proviso to Section 372 not only deals with filing of
appeal by the victim but it also provides for Forum. The Forum
of such appeals is same as in case of appeals against conviction.
Section 374 shows that some appeals against conviction lie
before Session Court. Therefore, some appeals of the victim
against acquittal would lie before the Sessions Court. In respect
of such appeals there is no question of obtaining leave. This
creates serious anomaly.
(3) The proviso to S. 372 deals with the rights of the victim to
file an appeal against the following order:
i. against acquittal
ii. against conviction for a lesser offence and
iii. against imposition of inadequate compensation
As far as imposing inadequate compensation is
concerned, the Government has no role to play. Once it is laid
down that a right of appeal under the proviso is controlled by
Section 378 (3) Cr. P.C. then such a stipulation would apply to
appeals against all the three orders.”
8. Though the learned Amicus Curie has suggested that these matters be
referred to larger Bench to reconsider the decision of this Court in Satya Pal
Singh, we do not think that such course ought to be adopted in the present
Page 8
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
9
matter. The special leave petition has been pending in this Court for last 5
years. In any case, in the present matter the victim had preferred an
application to treat the appeal initially filed under Section 372 to be one
under Section 372 read with Section 378 Cr.P.C. Though the High Court
observed that no such leave was necessary, the matter now assumes different
complexion in the light of the decision in Satya Pal Singh. However, since
there was already an application on behalf of the victim to treat the appeal
under Section 372 read with Section 378 Cr.P.C., in our considered view the
leave ought to be granted, which we presently do. The pending appeal shall
now be considered on merits by the High Court. This appeal, thus, stands
disposed of.
II Criminal Appeals arising out of SLP(Crl) Nos.8316-17 of 2012
9. These appeals, at the instance of the original informant question the
orders dated 20.06.2012 and 28.06.2012 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur. By order dated 20.06.2012
Criminal Application No.399 of 2012 preferred by State of Maharashtra
seeking leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 04.02.2012
passed by the Extra Joint Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Kelapur in
Sessions Trial No.6 of 2011 acquitting the accused of the offences
Page 9
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
10
punishable under Section 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC was rejected by
the High Court. The appeal under Section 372 Cr.P.C. preferred by the
Informant, who also happens to be the widow of the deceased was rejected
in the light of the earlier rejection dated 20.06.2012. It appears that State of
Maharasthra did not challenge the rejection of their application seeking
leave to appeal. This Court issued notice in the aforesaid matter on
12.10.2012 and the matter was thereafter tagged with SLP(Crl) No.7014 of
2012, namely, the earlier matter arising out of the judgment of the Gauhati
High Court.
10. Section 372 Cr.P.C. has conferred upon a victim a substantive and
independent right to maintain an appeal against acquittal. The widow of the
deceased in the present matter comes within the definition of “victim” as
incorporated in Section 2(wa). Merely because leave to appeal was not
granted to the State to prefer an appeal against acquittal, the appeal preferred
by the victim Informant ought not to have been rejected by the High Court
summarily. We, therefore, set aside the order dated 28.06.2012 passed by
the High Court rejecting Criminal Appeal preferred by the appellant and
remit the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration. It will be open to
the High Court to consider the matter for grant of leave to appeal to the
Page 10
WWW.LIVELAW.IN
11
appellant in the light of paragraphs 17 and 18 of the decision of this Court in
Satya Pal Singh.
11. These appeals are thus allowed in the aforesaid terms.
12. Before we part, we must express and record our sincere appreciation
for the assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae. The Court is
deeply grateful to him.
………………………J.
(Adarsh Kumar Goel)
………………………J.
(Uday Umesh Lalit)
New Delhi,
April 11, 2017
Page 11
